COPYRIGHT 


THE    COURT 


HE   TRIAL 


RIGHT  REV.   B  ERDO 


BY    AUTHORITY    OF    THE    COU*1 


:  ;  \ 


For  *< 


D. 
T2SE  CPSKIOWTS  OP  TE23  BISHOPS 

»•//.••  FtfO.U    777 A'    ;' 

IN  \LOFB1SHOPON  D  K  K  J)  O  N  K. 

'J  HL 

THE  UISHOP'S  0!  ."5. 

10  l-'2  c 

^/rtf/e^/ 

BISHOP    SOUTH  '•:  PLY: 

rER  TO  A  ) 

TH  IUR 

FOI; 

BY 

RRATIVK  Oi 
TO  THE  S^  JACOBITE)  CHURCH  OF  MESOPOTAMIA; 

WITH  ST 

81  '  \MTY   1 

Oiv  «flhc  Ron- 

"It  is  well  and  ablv  o  feel  an  in- 

terest in  t)  iiieir 

birth  " — .*}(('•• 

"  To  the  (.  .i  done  tlia  less  the  Christian  of 

othe,  it  will  be  i  •  iceljr 

less  interest  by  t. 

'•'THE  APOSTLES'  DOCTRINE  AND  FELLOWSHIP;" 

;RMONS 

Prec 

BY  THE  R 

of  North  C'.-i 

One  elegant  rolume,  16mo. 

"  Their  o'  .e  Bishop  himself  in  the  letter  in  wliii-:.  s  to  tht 

publication,  was   '  to  protect  the  Truth  from  harm,  at  this  time 
on   matters   of  Faith, — a   <  of  unfounded   and  it. 

against  Cii«ro!i-< 

tion  of  th- 

CATHOLIC  CHCRCH  IN  ENGLAND    AM)    \MKHU 

THREE  LECTU! 

1.  T: 

2.  T « r,  < 

3.  ITS  C 

BY  JOHN  OGIUBY,  D.  R 
One  t 
"Pro! 
aid. 

. 

A  r  -Sis  has  not  for  a  long  lime  is-ueii   fron.  and 

_iit  for  his 

" 


BCSB    LIBRAE 


THE 


PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE    COURT 


CONVENED  UNDER  THE  THIRD  CANON  OF  1844, 


CITY  OP  NEW  YORK,  ON  TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1844, 


THE    TRIAL 


EIGHT  REV.  BENJAMIN  T.  ONDERDONK,  D.  D. 

BISHOP    OF    NEW  YORK; 
ON  A  PRESENTMENT  MADE  BY  THE 

BISHOPS  OP  VIRGINIA,  TENNESSEE,  AND  GEORGIA. 

BY  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  COURT. 


NEW  YORK: 
D.   APPLETON  &   CO.,  200   BROADWAY. 

PHILADELPHIA : 
GEORGE  S.  APPLETOX,  148  CHESNUT-STREET. 

MDCCCXLT. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1845, 

BY  D.  APPLETON  &  CO., 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New-Ywk. 


NOTICE. 

Arty  infringement  upon  the  Copyright  of  this  work  will  be  prosecuted  to  the 
full  extent  of  the  law. 


PROCEEDINGS,  ETC. 


Tuesday,  Dec,  10,  1844. 

SEVERAL  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  attended  in  the  upper  room  of  the  Sunday-school  build- 
ing attached  to  St.  John's  Chapel  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  pursuance 
of  notice  from  the  Presiding  Bishop  convening  them  at  the  said  place  on 
said  day  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.,  for  the  trial  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin 
Tredwell  Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  New  York,  under  Canon  Third  of 
1844  ;  on  a  Presentment  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop 
of  Virginia,  the  Rt.  Rev.  James  Hervey  Otey,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Ten- 
nessee, and  the  Rt.  Rev.  Stephen  Elliott,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Georgia. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  Philander  Chase,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Illinois;  the  Rt.  Rev. 
Thomas  Church  Brownell,  D.  D.  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Connecticut ;  the  Rt. 
Rev.  Levi  Silliman  Ives,  D.  D.  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  North  Carolina  ;  the  Rt. 
Rev.  John  Henry  Hopkins,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Vermont ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Ben- 
jamin Bosworth  Smith,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Kentucky  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Charles 
Pettit  Mcllvaine,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Ohio  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  Washington 
Doane,  D.  D.  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Jackson  Kem- 
per,  D.  D.,  Missionary  Bishop  for  Wisconsin  and  Iowa,  and  Provisional 
Bishop  of  Indiana  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Leonidas  Polk,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Louisi- 
ana ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Heathcote  De  Lancey,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  West- 
ern New  York  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Christopher  Edwards  Gadsden,  D.  D.,  Bish- 
op of  South  Carolina  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Rollinson  Whittingham, 
D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Maryland  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Alfred  Lee,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 
Delaware  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  John  Johns,  D.  D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ; 
the  Rt.  Rev.  Manton  Eastburn,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Massachusetts  ;  the  Rt. 
Rev.  John  Prentiss  Kewley  Henshaw,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Rhode  Island  ;  and 
the  Rt.  Rev.  George  Washington  Freeman,  D.  D.,  Missionary  Bishop  for 
Arkansas,  were  present. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  the  Rt.  Rev. 
James  Hervey  Otey,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Tennessee  ;  and  the  Rt.  Rev.  Ste- 
phen Elliott,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Georgia,  appeared  as  Presenters. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  New 
York,  appeared  as  Respondent. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Illinois  read  Morning  Prayer. 

On  motion  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  number  of  Bishops  required  by  the  Canon  to  consti- 
tute a  Court  being  present,  the  senior  Bishop  be  requested  to  act  as  their 
presiding  officer. 


Whereupon  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Illinois,  the  senior  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  took  the  chair. 

Ordered,  That  this  Court  will  now  proceed  to  appoint  a  Clerk. 

Ordered,  That  the  election  of  Clerk  be  made  by  ballot. 

The  Rev.  Bird  Wilson,  D.  D.,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity  in  the  General  Theological 
Seminary,  was  nominated. 

The  President  appointed  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Missionary  Bishop  of  Arkan- 
sas, teller,  to  collect  and  declare  the  votes  for  Clerk,  and  the  Court  pro- 
ceeded to  ballot. 

Whereupon  it  appeared,  that  all  the  votes  had  been  cast  for  the  Rev. 
Bird  Wilson,  D.  D.,  and  he  was  accordingly  declared  unanimously  elect- 
ed Clerk  of  the  Court. 

Ordered,  That  Bishop  Whittingham  be  requested  to  act  as  Secretary 
until  Dr.  Wilson  can  be  notified  of  his  appointment,  and  shall  enter  upon 
its  duties. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Maryland  accordingly  proceeded  to  act  as 
Secretary. 

Ordered,  That  Bishop  Whittingham  be  requested  to  inform  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Wilson  of  his  appointment,  and  to  request  his  attendance  at  the  next 
meeting  of  this  Court. 

Ordered,  That  a  Committee  of  three  be  appointed  to  examine  and  re- 
port whether  the  Canonical  preliminaries  for  the  constituting  of  a  Court 
for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  have  been  duly  observed. 

Whereupon,  on  suggestion  of  the  President,  that  nomination  should  be 
made, 

The  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  and  New  Jersey, 
were  respectively  nominated,  and  on  motion  were  appointed  said  Com- 
mittee. 

Ordered,  That  a  certified  copy  of  the  Canon  under  which  this  Court  as- 
sembles be  provided  for  its  use  by  the  Clerk  ;  and  also  that  a  copy  be 
placed  by  him  in  the  hands  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T:  Onderdonk,  D.  D., 
and  one  of  the  Presenting  Bishops  respectively. 

Decreed,  That  in  conformity  to  the  suggestion  expressed  by  the  Present- 
ing Bishops  in  this  case,  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Court,  that  the  Bishops 
presenting  cannot,  under  the  Canon,  be  considered  as  members  of  the  Court 
in  any  sense. 

Decreed,  That  foreign  Missionary  Bishops  are  not  entitled  to  sit  as 
members  of  the  Court  provided  for  in  Canon  Third  of  1844. 

Ordered,  That  the  Court  shall  meet  at  half-past  nine  in  the  morning,  to 
be  opened  with  prayer  by  the  President.  Further  ordered,  That  the  Court 
shall  adjourn  each  day  at  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Ordered,  That  this  Court  do  now  adjourn  to  meet  at  half-past  nine  to- 
morrow morning. 

The  Court  accordingly  adjourned. 

Attest, 
W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

SECOND  DAY'S  SESSION,          > 
Wednesday,  Dec.  11,  1844,  half  past  9  A.  M.  \ 

The  Court  convened  for  the  trial  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onder- 
donk, D.  D.,  Bishop  of  New  York,  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 


5 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  list  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  was  called  over,  upon  which  it  appeared,  that  the  Rt.  Rev.  the 
Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky, 
Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  Northwestern  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana, 
Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  As- 
sistant Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Isl- 
and, and  the  Southwestern  Missionary  Diocese,  were  present. 

The  Presenting  Bishops  and  the  Respondent  severally  appeared. 

The  record  of  the  first  day's  session  was  read,  amended,  and  approved. 

The  Secretary  read  a  letter  by  him  received  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson, 
respectfully  declining,  for  various  specified  reasons,  to  act  as  clerk  of  the 
Court. 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Whittingham,  the 
Bishop  of  Maryland,  be  requested  to  act  as  the  Clerk  and  Secretary  of  this 
Court ;  and  that  an  assistant  Clerk,  being  a  Presbyter  not  of  the  Diocese 
of  New  York,  be  appointed  on  his  nomination,  by  ballot  by  the  Court. 

The  following  report  was  presented  and  accepted  : 

The  Committee  appointed  to  examine  whether  the  provisions  of  the 
canon  under  which  we  are  assembled  have  been  complied  with,  respect- 
fully report,  that  they  have  discharged  their  duty,  and  find  that  such  pro- 
visions have  been  duly  complied  with. 

(Signed,)         L.  S.  IVES,  Chairman. 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  the  Clerk  be  instructed  to  have  as  many 
copies  of  the  Presentment  as  may  be  wanted  by  the  Court,  duly  certified, 
furnished  for  the  use  thereof. 

The  Rev.  Anthony  Ten  Broeck,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey,  was  nominated  by  the  Clerk  to  be  his  assistant,  if  chosen  by  the 
Court. 

The  Court  went  into  ballot  upon  the  nomination,  and  upon  the  declara- 
tion of  the  votes,  it  appeared  that  the  nomination  was  adopted. 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  the  Clerk  be  empowered  to  procure 
the  attendance  of  an  officer  authorized  by  law  to  administer  oaths,  and 
that  the  testimony  in  this  trial  shall  in  all  cases  be  given  on  oath. 

The  President  then  asking  whether  all  parties  were  ready  for  procedure 
to  trial,  the  Presenters  and  Respondent  severally  made  answer  that  they 
were. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Virginia,  on  behalf  of  the  Presenting  Bish- 
ops, put  in  a  copy  of  the  Presentment,  which,  by  direction  of  the  Presi- 
dent, was  read  by  the  Assistant  Clerk. 


PRESENTMENT. 

To  the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 

America.: 

THE  undersigned,  that  is  to  say.,  the  Right  Reverend  William  Meade,  Bishop  of 
the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Virginia,  the  Right  Reverend  James  Hervey 
Otey,  Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Tennessee,  the  Right  Reverend 


6 

Stephen  Elliott,  jun.,  Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Georgia,  do 
hereby,  in  virtue  of  the  canonical  authority  reposed  in  them,  present  to  their 
brother  Bishops,  the  Right  Reverend  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  Bishop  of 
the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  as  being  guilty  of  immorality  and 
impurity  in.  the  several  specifications  hereinafter  more  particularly  set  forth  ;  and 
they  do  solemnly  demand  a  trial  of  the  said  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  pur- 
suant to  the  provisions  of  the  canons  of  the  General  Convention  of  the  said 
Church,  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 

ARTICLE  I. — The  said  Bishops  presenting  as  aforesaid  do  hereby  present  and 
allege,  that  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  June,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-seven,  being  then 
Bishop  of  said  Chufch  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  was  engaged  in  a  tour  of 
official  duty,  and  was  proceeding  to  the  town  of  Syracuse,  in  Onondaga  county,  in 
said  Diocese  of  New  York,  for  the  purpose,  among  other  matters,  of  ordaining  the 
Reverend  Clement  M.  Butler  to  the  Priesthood  ;  that  on  his  way  to,  and  near  the 
said  town  of  Syracuse,  the  said  Clement  M.  Butler,  together  with  his  wife,  met 
him  in  a  carriage,  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  him,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onder- 
donk, to  the  said  town. 

That  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  entered  the  said  carriage  and  took  his 
seat  on  the  back  seat  thereof,  by  the  side  of  the  said  lady  ;  that  they  two  alone 
occupied  that  seat,  the  said  Clement  M.  Butler  and  a  person  driving,  occupying 
the  front  seat ;  that  thereupon  afterwards  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  im- 
purely at»d  unchastely  put  his  arm  around  the  body  of  the  said  lady,  and  in  an 
improper  and  unbecoming  manner  pressed  the  said  lady  towards  him  ;  that  the  said 
lady  endeavored  to  repress  the  said  familiarities,  and  to  bring  said  Benjamin 
T.  Onderdonk  to  a  just  sense  of  his  duty  in  that  behalf ;  that  the  night  came  on 
before  the  said  parties  reached  the  end  of  their  journey  ;  and  that  after  it  became 
dark,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  renewed  his  said  improper  conduct,  and 
impurely  and  unchastely  did  pass  his  hand  down  and  along  the  person  and  the  legs 
of  the  said  lady ;  and  did  otherwise  behave  toward  her  in  so  rude  and  indecent  a 
manner,  that  she,  the  said  wife  of  the  said  Clement  M.  Butler,  was  obliged  to  claim 
the  protection  of  her  husband  ;  and  thereupon  she  left  her  seat  in  the  said  carriage, 
and  rode  upon  the  front  seat  thereof  for  the  rest  of  the  journey  ;  in  doing  which 
she  was  obliged  to  sit  upon  her  husband's  lap ;  and  that  owing  to,  and  in  conse- 
quence of,  the  said  conduct  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  the  said  lady 
became  seriously  sick,  and  her  health  was  so  much  affected  as  permanently  to 
injure  her  constitution  ; — all  which  said  actings  on  the  part  of  the  said  Benjamin 
T.  Onderdonk,  the  said  Bishops  presenting  do  charge  as  being  in  violation  of  his 
duty  as  Bishop,  and  contrary  to  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the 
great  scandal  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

ARTICLE  II. — The  said  Bishops  presenting  do  further  present  and  allege,  that 
the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk.  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  at  the  said  time  and  place 
mentioned  in  the  last  specification,  was  under  the  influence  of,  and  improperly  ex- 
cited by,  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors  drunk  by  him,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onder- 
donk, contrary  to  his  duty  as  Bishop,  and  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and 
to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  said  Church. 

ARTICLE  III. — And  the  said  Bishops  presenting  do  further  present  and  allege, 
that  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  August,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  thirty-eight,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  being  then  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  was  travelling  in  a  public  stage  from  Batavia,  in  the  Diocese  of  New 
York,  to  Utica,  in  the  same  Diocese,  for  the  purpose  of  attending  a  meeting  of  the 
Convention  of  said  Diocese,  then  about  to  be  held  at  Utica ;  that  the  only  passen- 
gers in  the  said  stage  were  the  said  Bishop  and  the  Reverend  James  A.  Bolles, 
and  a  young  woman,  to  the  said  Presenting  Bishops  unknown,  and  whose  name 
they  are  not  able  to  furnish  ;  that  the  said  Bishop  and  young  woman  occupied  the 
back  seat,  and  the  said  James  A.  Bolles  the  middle  seat  of  the  said  stage  ;  and 
that  thereupon  afterwards  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  impurely  and  un- 
chastely put  his  arm  around  the  body  of  the  said  young  woman,  and  took  other 
indecent  liberties  with  her  person ;  and  behaved  in  so  improper  and  unbecoming 


a  manner,  that  the  said  young  woman  endeavored  to  get  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  and  finally,  with  a  view  to  escape  his  rudeness,  left 
the  stage  before  reaching  the  place  of  her  destination  ; — which  said  coriduct  of  the 
said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  the  said  Bishops  present,  as  being  contrary  to  his 
consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church 
aforesaid. 

ARTICLE  IV. — And  the  said  Bishops  presenting  do  further  present  and  allege, 
that  on  or  about  the  twentieth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thpusand 
eight  hundred  and  thirty-nine,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  then  being  Bish- 
op as  aforesaid,  visited  Westchester  County,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  for  the 
purpose  of  officiating  in  St.  Paul's  Church,  East  Chester ;  that  the  said  Bishop 
dined  *.t  the  house  of  Isaac  U.  Coles,  Esquire,  and  after  dinner  walked  with  Miss 
Ann  Wilson,  then  governess  in  the  family  of  the  said  Coles,  and  Miss  Chadwick,  (of 
Boston,)  in  the  garden  attached  to  the  house  of  said  Coles ;  that  thereupon  after- 
wards upon  reaching  a  retired  part  of  the  garden,  said  Bishop  seized  an  oppor- 
tunity when  the  said  Miss  Chadwick  was  separated  from  the  said  Ann  Wilson,  and 
did  rudely  and  grossly  insult  the  said  Ann  Wilson,  by  impurely  and  unchastely 
thrusting  his  hand  into  her  bosom,  to  her  great  astonishment  and  fright ;  and  did 
otherwise  so  misbehave  himself  to  the  said  Ann  Wilson,  that  she  was  obliged 
hastily  to  leave  the  said  Bishop,  and  retreat  to  the  house  of  the  said  Coles ;  which 
said  conduct  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  the  said  Bishops  present  as  con- 
trary to  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the 
Church  aforesaid. 

ARTICLE  V. — The  said  Bishops  presenting  do  further  present  and  allege,  that 
"between  the  months  of  May  and  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-one  ;  to  wit :  on  or  about  Sunday  the  13th  day'of  June,  in  the 
said  last  mentioned  year,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  then  being  Bishop  as 
aforesaid,  visited  St.  James's  Church,  Hamilton  square,  New  York  city  ;  that  soon 
after  the  services  of  the  church  were  ended,  and  on  the  day  last  aforesaid,  he  left 
the  said  church  in  a  carriage,  in  company  with  Miss  Helen  M.  Rudderow,  a  voung 
lady,  to  proceed  as  a  guest  to  the  house  of  her  brother,  John  Rudderow,  Esquire ; 
that  while  riding  in  the  said  carriage  by  the  side  of  the  said  young  lady,  he,  the 
said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  impurely  and  unchastely  thrust  his  hand  beneath  her 
dress  upon  the  bosom  of  the  said  Helen  M.  Rudderow,  to  her  great  alarm  and  con- 
sternation, and  in  violation  of  the  proper  duty  of  a  Bishop,  and  in  breach  of  the 
consecration  vow  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  to  the  great  scandal  and 
injury  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

ARTICLE  VI. — The  said  Presenting  Bishops  do  further  present  and  say,  that  on 
the  same  day  mentioned  in  the  last  specification^  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
Bishop  as  aforesaid,  was  received  at  the  house  of  the  said  John  Rudderow,  in  the 
parlor  thereof,  by  Jane  O.  Rudderow  ;  and  that  thereupon  the  said  Benjamin  T. 
Onderdonk.  impurely  and  unchastely,  thrust  his  hand  into  the  bosom  of  the  said 
Jane  O.  Rudderow,  and  upon  being  repelled,  took  other  indecent  and  unbecoming 
liberties  with  the  said  lady,  in  violation  of  his  duty  as  Bishop,  and  his  consecration 
vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  great  scandal  and  disgrace  of  his  said  office. 

ARTICLE  VII. — And  the  said  Bishops  presenting  do  further  present  and  allege,  that 
on  or  about  Sunday,  the  seventeenth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  forty-two,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  then  being  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  held  a  confirmation  at  Zion  Church,  Long  Island,  in  the  Diocese  of 
New  York ;  that  after  the  services  were  ended  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Oaderdonk 
returned  to  the  house  of  the  Reverend  Henry  M.  Beare,  where  he  was  a  guest, 
in  the  carriage  of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare,  in  company  with  Mrs.  Charlotte 
Beare,  the  wife  of  the  said  Henry ;  that  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  and 
Charlotte  Beare  occupied  the  back  seat  of  the  said  carriage,  and  the  other  persons 
in  the  same  were  so  situated  as  to  have  their  backs  towards  the  Bishop  and  the 
said  Charlotte  ;  that  thereupon  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  impurely  and 
unchastely  put  his  arm  around  the  body  of  the  said  Charlotte  Beare,  drew  her 
towards  himself,  and  at  the  same  time  felt  her  bosom  in  an  improper  and  indecent 
manner,  so  as  to  scandalize  the  feelings  of  the  said  lady,  and  cause  her.  to  remove 
herself  from  hiru  as  far  as  the  side  of  the  carriage  would  permit,  to  avoid  his  rude- 


8 

ness  ;  in  violation  of  his  duty  as  Bishop,  and  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf, 
and  to  the  disgrace  of  his  said  office. 

ARTICLE  VIII. — And  the  said  Presenting  Bishops  do  further  present  and  allege, 
that  in  the  afternoon  of  the  said  seventeenth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-two,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  held 
a  Confirmation  at  Whitestone  Chapel,  on  Long  Island  aforesaid,  and  after  the  ser- 
vices went  to  spend  the  evening  at  the  residence  of  Joseph  L.  Franklin,  Esquire, 
on  said  island  ;  that  about  nine  o'clock  at  night,  the  Bishop  was  returning  home  to 
the  house  'of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare,  where  he  was  a  guest,  and  was  accompa- 
nied in  the  carriage  of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare  by  the  said  Charlotte  Beare,  the 
wife  of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare,  she  being  constrained  by  circumstances  to  ride 
with  the  said  Bishop  against  her  own  desire,  and  she  and  the  said  Bishop  sitting 
alone  on  the  back  seat ;  that  while  thus  on  their  way  the  said  Benjamin  T.  On- 
derdonk again  insulted  the  said  Charlotte  Beare  in  the  grossest  manner,  by  im- 
purely and  unchastely  putting  one  arm  around  her  body,  while  he  thrust  his  other 
hand  beneath  her  dress,  upon  her  naked  bosom ;  that  upon  the  same  being  repel- 
led, the  eaid  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  repeated  the  indignity,  and  finished  his  acts 
of  rudeness  by  passing  his  hand  in  the  most  indecent  manner  down  the  body  of  the 
said  Charlotte  Beare,  outside  of  her  dress,  so  that  nothing  but  the  end  of  her  cor- 
set-bone prevented  his  hand  from  being  pressed  upon  the  private  parts  of  her  body  : 
all  which  acts  and  doings  threw  the  said  Charlotte  into  the  deepest  distress  ; — to  the 
manifest  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church  of  which  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onder- 
donk was  a  Bishop,  and  in  violation  of  his  vows  before  God,  solemnly  entered  into 
on  his  consecration. 

ARTICLE  IX. — And  the  said  Bishops  presenting  do  further  present  and  allege, 
that  at  sundry  other  times  within  the  seven  years  last  past,  the  said  Benjamin  T. 
Onderdonk,  while  Bishop  of  said  Diocese  of  New  York,  and  within  the  limits  of 
the  said  Diocese,  has  impurely  and  unchastely  laid  his  hands  upon  the  bodies  of 
other  virtuous  and  respectable  ladies,  whose  names  have  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  said  Bishops,  so  that  he  is  of  evil  report  within  the  limits  of  the  said  Dio- 
cese, and  .in  other  parts  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America;  to  the  manifest  scandal  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  disgrace  of 
the  office  of  the  said  Benjamin  -T.  Onderdonk  :  and  nothing  prevents  the  presenta- 
tion of  these  cases  on  separate  specifications,  but  the.  want  of  a  civil  process  by 
which  to  compel  witnesses  to  testify  to  the  truth  of  these  matters. 

Dated  this  seventh  day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred'  and  forty-four. 
Signed, 

.      .  WILLIAM  MEADE,  D.  D., 

Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  Virginia. 

JAMES  H.  OTEY, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Tennessee. 

STEPHEN  ELLIOTT,  Jun., 

Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Georgia. 


The  President  then  called  on  the  Respondent  for  his  plea. 

The  Rt.  Rev. 'Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  New  York,  as 
Respondent,  pleaded  NOT  GUILTY  to  the  charges  made  and. contained  in  the 
Presentment. 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  so  much  of  the  Presentment  as  is  con- 
tained in  the  ninth  article  of  the  said  Presentment,  be  stricken  out  as  not 
proper  for  trial,  being  without  reasonable  certainty  as  to  time,  place,  or 
circumstances. 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  the  Presenting  Bishops  furnish  the 
Court  with  the  names  of  those  witnesses  for  whom  they  require  citations. 

It  was  Ordered  by  the  Court,  that  the  Presenters  inform   the   witnesses 


9 

that  their  presence  will  be  required  on  Friday  morning,  at  half-past  nine 
o'clock. 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  when  the  Court  do  adjourn,  they   ad- 
journ to  meet  this  afternoon  at  five  o'clock,  to  adjourn  again  at  seven. 
The  Court  then  adjourned.     • 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk,    • 

^Wednesday,  Dec.  11,  5  P.  M. 

The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North -Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary.  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ; 
the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts, -Rhode 
Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  record  of  the  morning's  session  was  read,  amended,  and  adopted.  . 

A  motion  was  made  for  the  following  order,  viz : 

Ordered,  That  in  proceeding  to  investigate  the  charges  in.  so  much  of 
the  Presentment  as  relates  to  transactions  alleged  to  have  transpired  ante- 
rior to  the  date  of  three  years  prior  to  the  date  of  the  Presentment,  the 
Court  do  so  with  the  protest — that  such  charges  (said  charges  being  for 
immoralities,  and  not  for  any  offences  made  criminal  by .  the  laws  of  the 
land)  are  brought  forward  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  our  canons,  which  re- 
quire, in  all  cases  of  moral  character,  testimonials  for  the  three  preceding 
years  only. 

On  the  question  being  put,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  called 
by  the  Clerk  ;  upon  which  the  motion  was  lost,  the  votes  being — 

Illinois,  no — Connecticut,  aye — North  Carolina,  aye — Vermont,  'no — 
Kentucky,  no — Ohio,  no — New  Jersey,  aye — North  Western  Missionary 
Diocese,  no — Louisiana,  no — Western  New  York,  aye — South  Carolina, 
aye — Maryland,  aye — Delaware,  no — (Assistant)  Virginia,  no — -Massa- 
chusetts, no — Rhode  Island,  no — South  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  no. 

Ayes  6 — Noes  11.  • 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Friday,  Dec.  13,  1844, 
half- past  9;  A.  M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey, 
the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York, 
South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia ; 
and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western 
Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  Wednesday  evening  was  read,  and 
adopted. 

Ordered,  That  the  Court  do  now  proceed  to  the  trial. 

The  Respondent  then  informed  the  Court  that  he  had  given  notice  to  the 
Presenters  that  he  should  employ  Counsel,  and  that  he  had  engaged  the 


10 

services  of  David  B.  Ogden,  Esq.,  in  that  capacity.  He  also  asked  per- 
mission of  the  Court  to  employ  an  amanuensis,  and  to  introduce  the  Rev. 
Edward  N.  Mead  in  that  capacity. 

Ordered,  That  the  request  of  the  Respondent  be  granted. 

The.  Presenting  Bishops  then  informed  the  Court  that  they  had  engaged 
the  services  of  Hiram  Ketchum,  Esq.,  as  Counsel.  They  also  asked  per- 
mission of  the  Court  to  employ  an  amanuensis,  and  to  introduce  Stephen 
Cambreleng,  Esq.,  in  that  capacity. 

Ordered,  That  the  request  of  the  Presenting  Bishops  be  granted.  . 

Ordered,  That  during  the  trial  the  Court  will  meet  each  day  at  half-past 
9  o'clock  A.  M-,  and  adjourn  at  4  P.  M. 

David  B.  Ogden,  Esq.,  appeared  in  Court  as  of  Counsel  for  the  Re- 
spondent. 

Hiram  Ketchum,  Esq.,  appeared  in  Court  as  of  Counsel  for  the  Present- 
ing Bishops. 

Ordered,  That  the  Counsel  of  the  parties  have  time  to  prepare  the  case, 
until  half  past  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Ordered,  That  the  Court  do  now  adjourn. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Saturday,  Dec.  Uth,  1844.  > 
lialf-past  9  A.  M.      \ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey, 
the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Caro- 
lina, Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the 
Bishops  of  Massachusetts, Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary 
Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  was  read  and  adopted. 

Ordered,  That  when  the  Court  is  cleared,  the  Presenting  Bishops,  the 
Respondent,  and  the  Assistant  Clerk  be  not  included  in  said  order. 

The  -Counsel  for  the  Presenting  Bishops  then  opened  the  case  in  behalf 
of  the  Presentment.* 
1 

May  it  please  the  Court — 

Although  the  position  I  now  occupy  might  be  regarded  as  worthy  of  professional 
ambition,  yet  I  feel  bound  to  say  that  it  is  not  one  of  my  own  seeking. 

I  was  called  upon  a  few  weeks  .since  by  the  Presenting  Bishops  to  assist  as 
counsel  in  the  management  of  the  case  before  the  Court  of  Bishops,  if  counsel 
should  be  required  ;  that  is,  in  the  event  of  the  Respondent  appearing 'by  counsel. 
I  regretted  the  application  to  me,  yet,  having  been  made,  I  did  not,  upon  reflection, 
consider  myself  at  liberty  to  decline  it.  For,  first,  the  application  came  from  three 
of  the  most  respectable  Bishops  of  the  Church,  acting,  as  they  believed,  under  a 
high  sense  of  duty  ;  and  the  service  solicited  was  directly  in  the  line  of  my  profes- 
sion. Secondly,  I  am  a  member,  though  an  unworthy  one,  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  ;  and  it  did  appear  right  to  me,  that  if  counsel  were  employed,  it  was 
desirable  that  they  should  be  members  of  the  Church. 

*  The  opening  speech  of  Counsel  was  sent  by  him  to  the  Clerk,  while  the  Journal  was  in  press,  with 
the  introductory  remark,  "  Mr  Ketchum  opened  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  Presenting  Bishops  substan- 
tially as  follows." 


11 

But  while  I  consented  to  act  as  Counsel,  I  distinctly  informed  the  Rt.  Rev.  Pre- 
sentors  that  I  could  not  appear  in  any  sense  as  a  volunteer.  I  was  anxious,  and  am 
now  anxious,  to  be  explicitly  understood  on  this  point ;  for  I  have  long  known 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  and  though  I  could  not  lay  claim  to  an  intimate  .acquaintance,- 
yet  our  relations,  so  far  as  I  know,  have  been  very  friendly  :  certainly  no  other 
feelings  have  been  entertained  on  my  part.  It  is  now  about  twenty  years  ago  since 
I  had  a  public  discussion  with  the  Bishop,  at  the  capitol  of  this  state,  before  a 
committee  of  the  Senate.  I  have  often  had  occasion  to  say,  since  that  discussion, 
and  say  it  now  with  great  pleasure,  that  he  sustained  his  side  of  it,  not  only  with 
distinguished  ability,  but  with  the  candor  and  courtesy  of  a  Christian  gentleman. 
Since  that  time,  after  long  attendance  upon  her  ministrations,  I  have  seen  fit,  in 
the  maturity  of  my  judgment,  such  as  it  is,  to  unite  myself  to  the  communion  oTthe 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  more  than  seven  years  ago,  the  hands  of  the 
Respondent  were  laid  on  my  head,  in  the  holy  rite  of  confirmation.  I  must  not, 
therefore,  be  regarded,  in  any  sense,  a  volunteer  in  supporting  the  Presentment 
against  him. 

I  appear  as  the  counsel  of  the  Presenting  Bishops  ;  but  in  representing  them, 
and  acting  under  their  instructions,  which  accord  entirely  with  my  own  inclinations, 
I  shall  try  this  cause  with  the  utmost  candor  and  liberality  toward  the  Respondent. 
I  contend  not  for  victory — but  desire  to  present  and  investigate  the  evidence  fairly  ; 
and  I  now  say.  that  if  after  a  fair  and  impartial  investigation  of  the  facts,  your  minds 
shall  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Respondent  is  not  guilty — none  in  this  Court, 
or  out  of  it,  will  be  more  gratified  with  that  result  than  the  Presenting  Bishops  and 
their  Counsel.  I  am  willing  to  stipulate  with  my  learned  friend  on,  the  other  side, 
that  our  Bishop  shall  have  a  fair  trial. 

I  feel  some  embarrassment  lest  any  attempt,  on  my  part,  to  instruct  a  Court  con- 
.  fessedly  so  learned  and  venerable  as  that  which  I  have  the  honor  to  address,  in  their 
duty,  should  seem  presumptuous  ;  but  perhaps  my  daily  familiarity  with  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  in  the  courts  of  law,  will  enable  me  to  make  some  suggestions 
fo  this  Court  not  wholly  out  of  place.  The  government  of  the  Church,  I  respect- 
fully submit,  like  the  civil  government,  is  divided  into  the  legislative,  the  judicial, 
and  the  executive  departments.  The  House  of  Bishops  is  a  part  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  Church,  as  the  Senate  is  a  branch  of  the  National  Legislature,  or,  per- 
haps, more  like  the  House  of  Lords  in  England,  which  is  composed  of  members 
whose  term  of  office,  like  that  of  the  Bishops,  is  perpetual.  Here,  however,  the 
Bishops  act  not  as  part  of  the  Legislature  of  the  Church,  but  as  the  judiciary. 
There  is  yet  another  department  in  which  the  Bishops  act  in  their  spiritual  capaci- 
ty— of  which  it  is  not  necessary  now  to  speak — but  here  they  compose  the  judicial 
department  of  the  Church  ;  they  are  clothed,  not  with  their  surplices,  or  their  gowns, 
but,  in  contemplation  of  law,  they  are  invested  with  the  ermine  of  the  judiciary  ;  and 
the.  only  difference  between  this  and  other  Courts  is,  that  here  that  ermine  is  supposed 
.  to  he  some  shades  whiter  and  purer  than  elsewhere.  I  have  thought  proper  to  remind 
the  Court  of  these  distinctions,  because  I  understand  something  has  been  said  about 
the  allege:!  offences,  or  some  of  them,  being  outlawed.  Now,  I  need  not  inform 
the  Court  that  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  which  are  the  statutes  of  the  Church, 
make  no  provisions  for  the  outlawing  of  offences,  and  if  the  Legislature  of  the 
Church  have  made  no  such  provision,  this  Court,  sitting  in  its  judicial  capacity,  have 
no  more  power  to  make  such  a  provision  than  the  humblest  slave  who  communi- 
cates at  her  altars.  The  Court  cannot  make  law,  but  they  must  adjudicate  the  law 
as  they  fin\J  ii — they  have  no  legislative  power. 

Let  us  now  torn  to  the  pleadings  in  the  case.  The  Presentment  sets  forth  the 
offences  charged,  with  time,  place,  and  circumstances,  according  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  Canon.  The  plea  of  the  Respondent  is,  Not  Guilty.  This,  then,  is 
the  issue  for  you  to  try — is  the  Bishop  guilty,  or  not  guilty,  of  the  offences  specifi- 
cally set  out  in  the  Presentment  1  All  the  evidence  offered,  bearing  upon  this 
point,  ought  to  be  received  by  the  Court, — any  evidence  not  relevant  to  this  issue, 
should  be  rejected. 

The  first  case  mentioned  in  the  Presentment  is  that  of  Mrs.  Butler,  the  wife  of 
the  Rev.  Cl.ement  M.  Butler,  a  very  respectable  Presbyter  of  the  Church.  The 
facts,  as  they  will  be  proved,  will  make  out  a  case  of  more  aggravated  criminality 


12 

man  that  charged  in  the  Presentment.  Mr.  Butler  was  to  be  ordained  to  the 
priesthood  in  Syracuse,  where  he  was  officiating  as  a  clergyman.  On  or  about 
the  first  of  June,  1837,  he  went  from  Syracuse  to  Ithaca,  in  a  private  carriage, 
accompanied  by  his  wife,  and  a  person  who  drove  the  carriage,  for  the  purpose  of 
meeting  the  Bishop,  and  conveying  him  to  the  place  of  ordination.  Having:  taken 
in  the  Bishop  at  Ithaca,  and  on  their  return,  in  the  evening  of  the  day,  the  Bishop, 
sitting  on  the  back  seat  with  Mrs.  Butler,  began  his  familiarities  with  th«  young 
lady,  then  recently  married,  by  putting  his  arm  around  her  waist,  and  drawing  her 
close  to  his  side.  This  was  observed  by  the  husband,  and  permitted,  at  first,  by 
Mrs.  Butler,  who  had  long  known  the  Bishop.  She  at  length  became  annoyed  by 
these  familiarities,  and  slightly  rose  and  gently  removed  the  Bishop's  arm  from 
around  her  person,  and  laid  his  hand  upon  his  knee,  and  observed  to  him,  mildly, 
in  the  hearing  of  her  husband  :  "  Bishop,  this  is  a  sacred  hand,  it  has  been  laid 
upon  the  heads  of  many  of  my  friends  in  confirmation,  and  to-morrow  it  will  be 
laid  upon  the  head  of  my  husband  in  ordination."  .  This  gentle,  but  keen  reproof, 
seemed,  for  the  moment,  to  be  heeded  by  the  Bishop.  Shortly  after,  however,  he 
suddenly  encircled  the  lady  with  his  arm,  and  pressed,  or  clasped  her  bosom.  She 
struck  down  his  hand,  and  he  immediately,  in  a  most  indelicate  manner,  grasped 
her  thigh.  Whereupon,  she  instantly  left  the  seat,  and  sat  upon  her  husband's  lap 
on  the  front  seat.  Without  going  into  further  detail,  in  statement  of  the  proposed 
proof,  let  us  inquire  into  the  character  of  this  offence.  •  This  is  the  conduct  of  a 
Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  it  will  be  recollected.  Now,  I  speak  not  of  the 
personal  indignity,  or  insult,  offered  to  Mrs.  Butler,  but  here  is,  if  I  may  be  al- 
lowed the  expression,  an  assault  upon  the  soul.  What  could  more  effectually  con- 
vince a  person  receiving  such  treatment  at  the  hands  of  a  Bishop,  that  he  regarded 
religion  as  a  cheat,  a  delusion,  and  that  his  pretended  attachment  to  it  was  mere 
hypocrisy  ?  What  course  of  conduct  would  have  a  more  direct  tendency  to  mur- 
der the  soul  ?  This  is  the  light  in  which  I  desire  to  present  these  offences  to  the 
Bishops  of  the  Church. 

Mr.  Ketchum  then  went  on  to  state  the  evidence  which  he  intended  to  offer 
under  the  other  charges  in  the  Presentment,  observing  that  he  might  not  be  able  to 
state  it  precisely  as  it  would  turn  out  in  proof,  from  the  fact  that  his  opportunity 
of  conferring  with  the  witnesses  had  been  slight.  These,  remarked  Mr.  Ketchum, 
are  the  facts  which  I  believe  we  shall  prove  in  support  of  the  Presentment:  As  to 
the  course  of  the  defence,  he  went  on  to  say  :  I  am  not  able  to  anticipate  what  it 
may  be ;  but  it  has  been  given  out  publicly,  that  this  Presentment  has  been  insti- 
gated by  party  spirit,  and  is  the  result  of  a  conspiracy  formed  by  the  Bishop's 
enemies  in  the  Church.  I  suppose  that  the  real  question  for  your  determination  is 
— are  the  charges  alleged  true  or  false  1  If  they  are  true,  it  is  of  small  moment 
how,  or  by  what  motives  the  inquiry  was  instituted.  Still,  however,  a  conspiracy 
is  alleged.  Now,  I  have  to  say  that  no  objections  will  be  made  to  the  proof  of 
such  conspiracy,  if  any  should  be  offered.  If  such  proof  is  offered,  we  stand  pre- 
pared to  rebut  it,  and  show  precisely  how  the  prosecution  was  instituted.  We  will 
show  that  it  had  not  its  origin  in  this  diocese,  but  that  it  was  entirely  a  Southern 
movement,  and  chiefly  promoted  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Trapier  of  Charleston.  We 
profess  our  entire  readiness  to  meet  the  allegation  of  conspiracy,  whenever  it  is 
brought  forward  and  attempted  to  be  sustained  by  proof. 

When  witnesses  for  the  Presentment  were  about  to  bo  called,  the  Coun- 
sel for  the  Respondent  objected  to  the  reception  of  evidence  pertaining  to 
matters  of  more  than  three  years'  standing,  and  asked  that  the  objection 
might  be  recorded. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  asked  permission  of  the  Court  to  in- 
troduce a  female  friend  as  an  attendant  upon  the  female  witness  about 
to  be  brought  in. 

Ordered,  That  the  permission  requested  be  granted. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  asked  permission  ik*t  the  Rev.  Paul 
Trapier  attend  upon  Mrs.  Butler,  her  female  friend  being  absent. 


13 

Ordered,  That  the  permission  requested  be  granted. 

Frances  Livingston  Butler  was  called  up  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Pre- 
sentment. 

The  oath  was  administered  to  the  witness  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  a 
commissioner  legally  empowered  for  the  administration  of  oaths  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  and  appointed  in  this  case  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Court. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  commenced  the  examination  in  chief 
of  Mrs.  Frances  L.  Butler. 

Pending  the  examination,  the  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  stated  that  he 
had  understood  from  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  that  he  designed 
having  an  associate,  and  therefore  asked  permission  of  the  Court  to  have 
the  assistance  of  Gerardus  Clark,  Esq.,  in  the  management  of  the  case 
on  the  part  of  the  Presentment. 

Ordered,  That  the  permission  asked  be  granted. 

Gerardus  Clark,  Esq.,  made  his  appearance  in  Court  as  associate  Coun- 
sel for  Presentment. 


14 

FRANCES  LIVINGSTON  BUTLER. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  name  ? 
Frances  Livingston  Butler. 

2.  Are  you  the  wife  of  whom  1 
Rev.  Clement  Moore  Butler. 

3.  When  was  you  married  to  Mr.  Butler  ? 
On  the  3d  of  April,  1837. 

4.  Where  did  he  then  reside  ? 

He  resided  at  Syracuse,  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

5.  Had  he  charge  of  a  church  there  ? 
He  had. 

6.  When  was  he  ordained  Priest  ? 

On  the  2d  of  June,  1837.  I  think  that  is  the  date.  The  Journal  of  Conven- 
tion will  show.  One  thing  I  wish  to  say.  It  is  rather  a  singular  thing  that  I 
do  not  recollect  the  date  of  my  marriage.  Several  anniversaries  occur  in  that 
month.  I  do  not  remember  whether  it  was  the  3d  or  13th. 

7.  By  whom  was  your  husband  ordained  Priest  ? 
By  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk. 

8.  Did  you  witness  the  ordination  ] 
I  did  not. 

9.  When  Bishop  Onderdonk-  came  to  ordain  your  husband,  did  your  husband, 
accompanied  by  you,  meet  him  on  the  way  ;  and  if  so,  where  ? 

He  did,  at  the  village  of  Ithaca. 

10.  In  what  sort  of  a  vehicle  did  you  go  ? 
In  a  barouche  wagon,  with  two  seats. 

11.  Who  accompanied  you,  besides  your  husband  ? 

A  man,  as  driver,  whose  name  was  Peck.  He  was  not  the  owner  of  the  carriage. 
He  had  business  in  Ithaca,  and  was  glad  to  drive  us  there.  He  was  a  parishioner 
of  my  husband. 

12.  Of  what  church  was  your  husband  rector  ? 

I  think  it  was  Zion  Church.     There  was  but  one  church  there. 

13.  What  time  did  you  receive  the  Bishop  in  the  carriage  ;  at  what  time  of  the 
day,  and  where  ? 

So  nearly  as  I  can  recollect,  it  was  a  little  before  sunset.  If  the  ordination 
took  place  on  the  2d  of  June,  it  was  on  the  1st.  It  was  at  the  house  of  Mr. 
Munn. 

14.  How  was  the  company  seated  in  the  carriage  ?     Please  describe. 

The  Bishop  was  seated  behind  the  driver,  Mr.  Butler  beside  the  driver,  and  I 
beside  the  Bishop,  on  the  back  seat. 

15.  How  long  did  it  take  you  to  accomplish  the  journey  from  Ithaca  to  Syra- 
cuse ? 

We  left  I  think  before  sunset,  and  arrived  the  next  day  about  an  hour  before  the 
time  appointed  for  service.  We  were  delayed.  We  had  not  intended  or  ex- 
pected to  ride  at  night.  We  were  delayed  by  bad  roads  going  down  to  Ithaca ; 
so  that  we  stayed  all  night  at  a  place  called  Dryden,  on  the  way  to  Ithaca,  about 
ten  miles  from  Ithaca.  We  were  again  delayed,  by  finding  that  there  were  to  be 
two  services  at  Ithaca,  instead  of  one  ;  and  again  delayed  after  the  second  ser- 
vice, by  a  storm  of  rain  and  lightning. 

16.  Did  you  ride  all  night  on  your  return  to  Syracuse  ? 

We  did,  except  when  we  rested  the  horses,  which  we  did  three  times. 

17.  Now,  Mrs.  Butler,  I  want  you  to  state  what  occurred  between  you  and  the 
Bishop  while  you  were  riding  in  that  carri 

I  scarce  know  how  or  where  to  begin.  Shall  I  begin  at  what  occurred  at  Mr. 
Munu's,  from  that  time  ?  We  received  the  Bishop  at  Mr.  Munn's,  on  my  part 


15 

with  all  cordiality,  inasmuch  as  I  had  long  known  him  as  a  friend  of  my  father, 
and  had.  always  considered  him  my  friend  ;  and  my  confidence  in  the  purity  of  his 
character  was  unhesitating.     I  noticed  immediately,  that  his  breath  was  tainted  by 
something  he  had  been,  drinking. 
By  the  Court.     Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

18.  Had  any  conversation  taken  place  between  the  witness  and  the  Bishop  prior 
to  his  getting  in  the  carriage  ? 

I  think  not,  sir. 

(Witness  resumed  narrative.)  At  first,  after  we  rose  the  hill'out  of  Ithaca,  the 
Bishop  read  letters  which  he  had  received ;  the  sun  had  then  set ;  he  read 
them  by  the  fading  sunset  light,  or  by  the  twilight  that  followed  the  sunsetting. 
When  I  first  noticed  that  his  breath  was  tainted  by  something  he  had  been  drink- 
ing, I  was  neither  surprised  nor  pained  by  it,  for  I  was  .aware  that  he  habitually 
used  wine  and  ardent  spirits,  but  was  not  aware  to  what  extent.  After  he  had 
finished  reading  his  letters,  I  found  with  some  alarm,  that  he  became  unusually 
talkative,  and  that  he  spoke  so  indistinctly  that  I  could  not  always  understand 
him.  He  first  put  his  arm  around  my  waist  and  drew  me  towards  him  ;  this  lie 
repeated  once,  perhaps  twice.  He  had  often  done  this  when  I  was  unmarried, 
and  I  had  permitted  it,  although  always  disagreeable  to  me  ;  because  I  believed 
him  incapable  of  wrong.  At  this  time,  however,  I  removed  his  hand  each  time, 
because  i  saw  that  he  was  not  himself.  I  was  exceedingly  fearful  lest  our  driver 
should  discover  it ;  as  he  was  a  man  who  had  but  recently  become  interested  in 
church  affairs  ;  and  fjor  whose  spiritual  interests  my  husband  was  deeply  solicitous  ; 
and  also  because  during  our  ride  to  Ithaca,  he  had  often  or  he  had  strongly  spoken 
of  the  inconsistencies  of  professing  Christians,  as  having  been  a  great  stumbling- 
block  in  his  way  to  heaven.  The  Bishop  persisted  in  putting  his  arm  about  me, 
and  raised  his  hand  so  as  to  press  my  bosom.  I  then  rose  and  withdrew  the  arm 
from  behind  me,  and  laid  the  hand  upon  his  knee,  and  said  to  him  in  a  raised  tone 
of  voice,  hoping  to  bring  him  to  himself,  and  wishing  to  attract  Mr.  Butler's  at- 
tention, that  a  Bishop's  hands  were  sacred  in  my  eyes,  and  that  his  were  particu- 
larly so,  because  they  had  been  laid  upon  the  heads  of  many  I  loved  in  confirma- 
tion, an^  were  about  to  be  laid  upon  my  husband's  head  in  ordination.  He  made 
but  little  answer,  but  for  some. little  time  let  me  alone.  During  this  time  I  thought 
of  the  awful  disgrace  that  would  come  upon  him,  and  his  family,  and  upon  the  Church, 
if  his  state  and  conduct  that  night  were  known.  I  had  a  lingering  hope  that  he  had 
been  betrayed  into  taking  more  than  was  habitual  to  him,  and  that  in  this  way  he 
had  been  betrayed  into  intoxication  ;  and  I  hoped  that  his  insult  to  me  was  unin- 
tentional. I  therefore  decided  upon  keeping  silence  upon  this  subject,  and  upon 
preventing,  so  far  as  in  me  lay,  its  ever  becoming  known.  While  sitting  in 
thought,  I  found  he  was  again  moving  :  I  waited  to  see  whether  he  might  not  be 
merely  steadying  himself  in  his  seat,  as  the  roads  were  rough,  when  he  sud- 
denly and  violently  again  brought  his  hand  upon  my  bosom,'pressed  and  clasped  it. 
In  some  horror  I  struck  the  hand  with  all  my  force,  and  he  withdrew  it ;  but  im- 
mediately grasped  rny  leg  in  the 'most  indelicate  manner.  I  sprang  forward  to  my 
husband,  and  told  him  I  could  no  longer  sit  with  the  Bishop  :  I  must  sit  with  him.  . 
I  was  greatly  distressed,  and  he,  Mr.  Butler,  held  me  on  his  knee  for  some  time ; 
and  after  that  I  rode  sometimes  on  his  knee,  and  sometimes  on  a  carpet  bag  at  his 
feet.  We  stopped  twice  during  the  night,  resting  at  Homer  an  hour  or  two,  as 
nearly  as  I  can  recollect.  During  all  our  time  of  stay  at  those  places,  my  whole 
efforts  were  needed  by  my  husband  to  soothe  him,  he  being  violently  incensed, 
and  declaring  that  Bishop  Onderdonk  should  not  ordain  him.  We  stopped  that 
morning  about  day-break,  at  a  place  about  ten  miles  distant,  I  should  think,  from 
Syracuse — perhaps  fifteen  miles.  Here  we  again  rested,  and  breakfasted.  Dur- 
ing the  ride  from  Homer  to  this  latter  place,  the  Bishop  slept  heavily.  When  we 
left  the  last  stopping-place,  I  .persuaded  Mr.  Butler  to  sit  back  with  the  Bishop,  in 
order  to  avoid  the  remark  that  would  be  occasioned  by  his  sitting  alone.  No  con- 
versation passed  between  the  Bishop  and  myself  after  I  changed  my  seat :  nor 
have  I  since  seen  him,  except  in  Convention,  until  now. 

19.  Did  the  Bishop  make  any  remark  when  you  left  the  back  seat  ? 

He  did  not,  nor  did  he  afterwards  remark  upon  the  way  in  which  we  rods. 


16  ;   *  f; 

20.  Was  it  a  clear  and  warm  night  on  that  occasion  ? 
It  was  warm,  but  not  clear  ;  it  drizzled  somewhat  about  midnight. 
'  •  21.  Did  the  Bishop  make  any  remark  about  the  state  of  the  weather  ? 
Not  that  I  recollect. 

22.  Did  he  make  any  remark  about  your  sitting  on  the  front  seat  ? 
I  have  answered  the  question,     He  ,did  not:  not  that  I  recollect. 

23.  Was  the  top  of  the  barouche  up  ? 

Yes,  sir.     But  I  do  not  recollect  whether  half  way,  or  all  the  way.  • 

24.  Was  you  exposed  entirely  to  the  inclemency  of  the  weather  on  the  front 
seat? 

I  was,  sir  ;  but  the  weather  was  by  no  means  severe. 

25.  What  occurred  on  the  next  day1? 

When  we  got  home  I  .was  very,  much  distressed  in  mind  and  body;  and  both 
unable  and  unwilling  to  attend  the  ordination.  .:  ,  "• 

26..  Was  Mr.  Butler  ordained  by  Bishop  Onderdonk? 

He  was  ordained,  by  him,  though  suffering  under  great  distress. 

27. ;  Did  Mr.  Butler  state  to  you  the  reasons  why  he  was  ordained  ?  {Objected 
.to  and  ruled  out.] 

28.  What  was  the  effect  of  Bishop  Onderdbnk's  treatment  towards  you,  on  your 
.health?  ' 

I  always  supposed  that  'some  weeks  of  indisposition  were  caused  by  the  distress 
that  I  'went  through  with  that  night. 

29.  When  And  where  was  you  indisposed  ?  .       . 
•   In  my  own  house,  sir ;  where  I  boarded,  rather,  at  Syracuse. 

30:  Did  your  indisposition  immediately  succeed  that  night? 
It  did. 

31.  When,;  and -to  whom,  did  you  first  communicate  these  facts? 

Never  minutely  to  any  one,  until  since  this  cause  has  been  on  the  carpet,  except 
to  my  husband  that  night.  I  have  since  avoided  conversation,  -even  with  him,  on 
the  subject. 

32.  Do  you  now  reside  in  Syracuse  ? 
I  do  not,  sir. 

33.  Where  do  you  now  reside  .?•.' 
In  the  city  of  Boston.  '• 

•      34.  Hbw  Ipngl    • 

Since  the  25th  of  May  last,  or  about  that  time.  Mr.  Butler's  institution  took 
place  on  the  25th  of -May  last,  and  we  arrived  there  a  day  or  two  previous. 

35.  Did  you  remain  at  Syracuse  up  to  the  time  of  your  removal  to  Boston,  and 
if  not,  where  did  you  live  in  the  mean  time  ?  ,  • 

At  Utica  afcout  six  months ;  at  Palmyra  two  years ;  at  Baltimore  about  seven 
months;  at  Georgetown;  D.  C.,  two  years  and  a  half;  and  thence  .moved  to 
Boston.  ;. .  ' 

3G.  What  time  did  you  remove  from  Syracuse  ? 

The  May  following- the  ordination,  in  1838. 

'.     •  • 

,     .. 
Crass-Examination,  by  Counsel  for  Respondent. 

1.  You  have  said  in  your  direct  examination,  that  when  you  spoke  to  the  Bish- 
»p  about  the.  sanctity  of  his  hands*  'he  said 'but  little.  I. now  wish  you  to  state 
what  he  did  say. 

I  cannot  recollect.  I  recollect  no  •conversation  at  all,  except'  some  remarks  on 
the  roughness  of  the  Broads  in  the  Indian  country.  • 

2..  What  was  the  distance  from  Ithaca  to  Syracuse  ? 
,  About -50  miles. 

3.  In  what  part  of  this  jburney  was  it  that  you  quit  yoUr  seat  with  the  Bishop, 
and  went  to  your  husband,  as  yon  have  stated.! 

It  was.  between  Ithaca  and  Dryden. 

4.  This  was,  then,  within  the  first  ten  miles  of  your  journey>  was  it? 
About  that. 


.  17 

5.  Did  you  never  after,  in  any  part  of  your  journey,  sit  en  the  back  seat  with 
the  Bishop  * 

I  think  not.     I  recollect  no  change. 

6.  Are  you  positive  T 

I  am  as  positive  about  this,  as  about  any  thing  so  immaterial  as  it  seems  to  me. 
Some  things  I  distinctly  recollect,  other  things  I  have  no  recollection  of.  This  is 
one  of  the  latter.  ../ 

7.  When  you  told  your  husband  that  you  could  no  longer  ride  on  the  seat  with 
the  Bishop,  did'  y.ou  tell  him  the  reason  why  ] 

I  did,  but  not  by  any  means  in  detail. 

8.  Did  your  husband  after  that,  of  your  knowledge  of  within  your  hearing,  say 
any  thing  to  the  Bishop  on  the  subject  1 

•'  I  recollect  nothing  said  on  the  subject.  '  . .    ' 

9.  .How  long  after  you  spoke  to  the  Bishop  about  the  sanctity. of  his  hands,  was 
it  that  you  left  the  Bishop,  and  went  upori  the  front  seat  with  your  husband  ? 

It  is  so  long  ago  that  I  do  not  recollect  accurately ;  but  I  should  think  fifteen 
minutes. 

10.  Do  you  think  your  husband  heard  those  observations,  made  by  you  to  the' 
Bishop  ! 

He  did,  sir.     I  spoke  ia  a  loud  tone,  in  order  to  attract  his  attention. 

11.  Have  you  any  recollection  that  night  before  you  left  thereat  with  the 
Bishop,  pf. having  complained  to  him  that  you  fell  very,  chilly  and  cold? 

I  have  no  such  recollection. 

12.  Upon  your  arrival  at  Syracuse,  did  tAe  Bishop  go  with  you  to  your  lodgings  * 
He  did  not,  sir. 

13.  Was  he  not  at  your  lodgings  that  day  * 
He  was  not,  sir. 

14.  Now,  Mrs.  Butler,  I  wish  you  to  recollect  yourself— do  you  not  remember 
that. he  was  there  in  .the  course  of  that  day,  and  that  you  and  your  husband  took 
him  about  your  house,  and  into  your  bedroom,  and  showed  him  how  comfortably 
you  were  accommodated  7 

I  recollect  no  such  proceeding- 
1$.'  .What  was  your  rn*iden-name  I 
Hart. 

16.  Where  does  your,  father  reside* 

In  Walden,  in  Orange  county,  state  of  New  York. 

17.  How  old  were  you  when  married  1 
I  was  twenty,  I  think,  sir. 

18    Had  not  the  Bishop,  for  many  years,  been  very  intimate  with  your  father's 

family  ? 

He  had  been  quite  so. 

19.  Was  not  his  manner  towards  you  and  all  the  family — the  Children — very 
kind  arid  parental  ? 

His  manner  had  been  always  affectionate,  and  I  supposed  it  parental. 

20.  Now,  Mrs.  Butler,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to'  tell  us  when  you  first  men- 
tioned these  •circumstances  to  any  person  besides  your  husband,  and  who  that  per- 
son was  1  ',,'.'. 

I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  mentioning  them,  in  detail,  to  any  person  what- 
ever, until  I  was  called  Upon  t6  make  my  affidavit.  I  have  alluded  to  them  in 
several  instances — in  three  instances  that  I  recollect,  and  but  three  that  I  recollect. 

21.  When  were  you  called  upon  to  make  this  affidavit,  and  where,  and  by  whom  ? 
Perhaps  I  was  wrong  -in  saying   I  was  called  upon  to  make  an  affidavit :  my 

husband  was  called- upon  to  make  one,  in  Philadelphia,  during  the  sitting  of  the  last 

General  Convention.     Upon  his  return  home,  he  showed  me  what  he  had  written, 

and  I  found  it  correct,  except,  perhaps,  in  one  little  matter. 

.    22.  What  was  that  little  matter  T 

,    I  would  rather  not  answer  the  question.     Mr.  Butler  can  answer  it. 

23.  I  must  insist  upon  an  answer. 

It  was  nothing  of  any  great  importance,  or  I  should  not  hesitate  to  answer. 

24.  "We  will  judge  of  that. 


18 

Mr.  Butler  understood  me  to  say,  that  I  was  afraid  the  Bishop  would  pull  up  my 
clothes,  whereas  I  said  he  was  so  violent  he  might  do  it. 

25.  Do  you  know  the  object  of  your  husband  in  going  to  Philadelphia  ]     Was 
he  a  delegate  to  the  Convention  '\ 

He  was  not  a  delegate  :  he  went  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  a  gentleman  who 
desired  to  establish  a  religious  periodical,  to  obtain  the  approbation  of  the  Bishops 
for  that  periodical. 

26.  Mrs.  Butler,  have  you  never  told  your  father  the  circumstances  of  this  case  ? 
I  have  not,  sir.     He  questioned  me,  for  the  first  time,  upon  the  subject  last 

spring,  and  I  told  him  that  what  had  passed  was  of  such  a  nature  that  I  did  not 
like  to  talk  about  it ;  that  he  had  placed  his  hand  upon  my  leg  in  a  very  indelicate 
manner  ;  and  that  I  was  perfectly  convinced  that. his  intoxication,  at  the  time,  led 
to  his  doing  so.  My  father  said  I  might  have  been  mistaken.  I  told  him  I  could 
not  tell  him  all,  but  I  was  not  mistaken. 

27.  You  have  mentioned,  a  little  while  ago,  that  you  had,  in  three  instances, 
alluded  to  this  subject.     What  were  those  instances  1 

To  my  sister-in-law,  Miss  Harriet  Butler,  at  Troy ;  to  my  friend,  Miss  Cath- 
arine Bruce,  of  this  city ;  and  to  my  father.  I  think  I  spoke  to  my  sister,  who 
lived  with  me  at  or  near  that  time  ;  I  did  not  speak  to  her  at  that  time,  she  being 
absent  at  boarding-school,  and  very  young. 

28.  Mrs.  Butler,  after  your  husband  returned  to  Boston,  and  showed  you  that 
affidavit,  to  whom  did  you  next  speak  on  the  subject  ? 

I  think,  my  uncle,  Mr.  Moote.  \  recollect,  now,  having  spoken  to  Mr.  Moore 
upon  the  subject,  early  last  spring,  h«  being  in  conversation  upon  the  rumors 
which  were  rife.  His  name  is  Thomas  William  Channing  Moore,  of  the  city  of 
New  York.  He  sailed  day  before  yesterday  for  Buenos  Ayres. 

29.  Was  the  conversation  with  him  after  yc-i  saw  the  affidavit,  in  New  York  or 
Boston  1 

He  visited  my  house  shortly  after  Mr.  Butter's  return  from  the  General  Con- 
vention at  Philadelphia  ;  but  I  do  not  remember  whether  at  that  time  I  had  seen  the 
affidavit  or  not.  Mr.  Butler  did  not  show  it  to  me  as  soor.  as  he  got  home,  he  being 
quite  confident  as  to  the  truth  of  each  circumstance  mentioned  in  the  affidavit ;  but 
he  did  show  me,  within — I  cannot  say  how  long  a  time — and  apologized  for  not 
showing  it  before,  because  of  his  certainty  with  regard  to  i\s  contents" 

30.  To  whofn  did  you  next  mention  it  ? 

I  do  not  recollect  mentioning  it  to  any  one  else  in  the  city  of  Boston ;  but  in 
New  York  I  have  mentioned  it  wherever  I  have  been  Maying,  among  my  friends, 
without  any  hesitation.  f 

31.  Did  any  body  call  upon  you  to  inquire  about  it,  and  v»ho  1 
No,  sir,  I  have  not  been  called  upon,  that  I  recollect. 

32.  Have  you  been  sent  for  by  any  person,  to  call  upon  them  1 

I  have  not  beeni  I  have  seen  Bishop  Meade  since  I  came  to  town  ;  he  told  me 
that  possibly  the  case  would  be  tried  without  a  lawyer,  and  I  had  better  put  dovn 
in  writing  what(I  had  to  say,  he  thinking  that  the  Court  would  receive  such  written 
testimony,  and  that  it  would  save  my  feelings  to  have  it  put  in  that  form. 

33.  Did  you  reduce  it  to  writing  ] 
I  did,  sir. 

34.  Did  you  know  before  you  left   Boston  to  come  to  this  city,  the  object  of 
your  coming  hither  1 

I  did,  sir  ;  I  was  subpoenaed  to  come  as  witness  in  this  case  by  the  Prosecuting 
Bishops. 

I  believe  so ;  I  do  not  recollect  the  form  of  subpoena.  It  was  signed  by  Bishop 
Chase. 

Direct  examination  resumed. 

37.  In  your  cross-examination  you  said  you  had  told  these  circumstances  to  no 
person  in  detail ;  in  your  direct  examination  you  said  to  no  person  except  your 
husband  ;  how  do  you  mean  to  be  understood  1 

Of  course,  as  in  my  direct  examination. 


By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  Doane. 

1.  In  directing  your  language  to  arrest  the  attention  of  your  husband,  did  you 
think  you  could  do  so  without  arresting  the  attention  of  the  driver! 

I  thought  I  could. 

2.  Did  you  have  reason  to  think  that  the  driver's  attention  was  drawn  to  what 
took  place  ? 

Not  at  the  time  ;  but  from  the  fact  that  he  never  asked  me  any  questions  after- 
wards on  the  subject,  I  supposed  it  was. 

3.  Did  you  have  any  other  evidence  or  reason  to  believe  that  these  circumstances 
became  known  in  Syracuse  ? 

I  had  not. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

4.  What  was  the  name  of  the  Church  at  Palmyra  where  you  resided  ? 
Zion  Church,  I  think. 

5.  What  was  the  name  of  the  Church  in  which  your  husband  ministered  at 
Baltimore,  and  Georgetown,  respectively  T 

He  was  a  missionary  at  Baltimore,  assisting  from  time  to  time  Dr.  Johns  in 
Christ  Church.     The  Church  in  Georgetown  was  called  St.  John's. 

6.  Did  Bishop  Onderdonk  in  reading  his  letters  appear  to  understand  what  he 
was  about  ? 

Yes,  sir,  I  thought  he  did. 

7.  Was  there  any  thing  in  his  conversation  that  night,  or  in  the  manner  in  which 
he  said  it,  that  induced  you  to  think  he  was  intoxicated  1 

He  spoke  very  thick,  and  talked  a  great  deal  during  the  early  part  of  the  ride, 

8.  Did  you  go  to  sleep  yourself  during  the  ride  ? 
I  did  not.  sir ;  not  at  all  through  the  night. 

9.  Did  your  husband  go  to  sleep  * 
I  do  not  recollect  that  he  did. 

10.  You  spoke  of  the  Indian  country  you  came  through;  what  Indian  country 
did  you  mean  ? 

The  Onondaga  tract. 
By  Bishop  Ives. 

11.  You  spoke  of  meeting  Bishop  Onderdonk  at  Ithaca,     At  what  time  did  you 
arrive  ? 

At  a  late  breakfast  hour  ;  it  must  have  been  9  o'clock. 

12.  Did  you  attend  service  that  morning  at  Ithaca  ? 
Yes,  sir. 

13.  How  many  times  ? 

I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  went  in  the  afternoon  or  not. 

14.  Did  you  dine  with  the  Bishop  that  day  ? 
I  did  not. 

15.  At  what  time  did  you  meet  him  after  service  ? 

I  think  we  spoke  with  him  at  the  chancel  after  the  morning  service  ;  that  is  all 
I  recollect. 

16.  Did  you  see  or  speak  with  Bishop  Onderdonk  on  the  day  that  you  arrived 
at  Syracuse  1 

I  have  never  spoVen  with  him  since.     I  did  not  on  that  Jay. 
By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

17.  Did  you  think  at  the  time  that  the  Bishop  would  i^ve  acted  towards  you  as 
he  did  if  he  had  had  his  full  consciousness ! 

I  thought  he  would  not  have  done  so. 

18.  Do  you  now  think  that  his  conduct  was  wholly  owing  to  intoxication  ? 
I  am  afraid  it  was  not. 

19.  Your  unwillingness  to  attend  the  ordinadon,  was  it  because  you  considered 
him  an  intemperate  man,  or  because  you  regarded  him  as  impure.'? 

Because  I  thought  him  both. 
By  Bishop  De  Lnncey. 

20.  Do  you  recollect  the  form  of  the  carriage  !  was  there  aback  to  the  front  seat ! 
1  do  not  recollect  distinctly. 


20 

21.  Did  the  driver  continue  to  be  connected  with  the  parish  ? 
He  did. 

22.  Did  you  ever  mention  this  subject,  or  any  part  of  it,  at  Palmyra,  where  you 
resided  ? 

I  think  I  there  mentioned  it  to  my  sister  who  lived  with  me,  as  having  altered 
my  opinion  of  Bishop  Onderdonk. 

23.  At  the  time  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  held  in  Utica, 
in  1838,  were  you  in  Utica  at  that  time  ? 

I  was. 

24.  At  or  about  that  time,  or  during  your  residence  in  Utica,  did  you  ever  men- 
tion this  subject  to  any  person  there  1 

I  recollect  no  such  mention.     I  was  exceedingly  guarded  on  the  subject. 

25.  During  or  about  that  period,  do  you  recollect  having  heard  this  subject 
talked  upon  1 

I  do  not,  sir — not  this  case  ;  except  that  I  knew  my  husband  had  mentioned  it. 

26.  From  whom  did  you  know  this  ! 
From  himself. 

27.  Did  your  husband  tell  you  to  whom  he  had  mentioned  it  ? 

He  did,  sir ;  and  how  it  came  about :  it  was  to  Rev.  Mr.  Lucas,  then  settled  at 
Auburn. 

28.  Did  you  ever  say  to  any  one,  in  these  various  conversations  on  the  subject, 
that  Bishop  Onderdonk  actually  attempted  to  lift  your  clothes  1 

I  never  did  say  so  ;  but  in  showing  to  my  husband  what  he  did  do,  he  saw  that  in 
doing  it,  my  clothes  were  somewhat  raised  ;  but  it  was  unintentional  on  my  part, 
conveying  to  him  the  impression  that  the  Bishop  had  attempted  to  do  so. 

29.  When  did  you  first  discover  that  your  husband  had  made  a  mistake  in  his 
apprehension  of  your  account  about  lifting  your  clothes  1 

When  he  showed  me  the  affidavit,wrliich  I  have  seen  but  once,  and  only  at  that  time. 

30.  Was  this  at  Boston  * 
It  was. 

31.  Did  you  ever  hear  this  story  in  relation  to  what  occurred  on  the  ride  from 
Ithaca  to  Syracuse,  connected  with  a  statement  that  Bishop  Onderdonk  had  at- 
tempted,, during  that  ride,  to  lift  your  clothes  ? 

I  recollect  no  such  statement.     I  should  have  contradicted  it,  if  I  had  heard  it. 

32.  Have  you  any  reason  to  think  that  your  husband  ever  spoke  of  this  trans- 
action, with  that  statement ! 

I  have  no  reason,  except  that  I  know  he  mentioned  the  circumstance  to  Mr- 
Lucas  and  Mr.  Irving,  and  probably  under  the  same  impression  with  which  he 
gave  his  affidavit. 

33.  Did  your  husband  ever  state  to  you  what  he  did  tell  Mr.  Lucas  and  Mr.Irving  1 
He  did  not,  sir. 

34.  Is  your  memory  such  a  one  as  that  you  rely  upon  it  with  certainty  as  to 
names,  dates,  places,  and  circumstances  ? 

With  regard  to  places  it  is ;  with  regard  to  circumstances  it  is ;  with  regard  to 
dates,  not  unless  I  have  previously  determined  to  impress  them  upon  my  memory  ; 
with  regard  to  names,  I  am  very  good  at  that. 

By  Bishop  Ives. 

35.  You  mentioned  in  your  direct  examination,  that   wi^n  the   Bishop  ap- 
proached you,  you  raised  your  voice  to  attract  the  attention  of  your  husband.     Do 
you  mean  that  you  raised  it  above  your  ordinary  voice  ? 

I  mean  that  I  raised  it  above  the  tone  in  which  I  was  then  conversing  with 
Bishop  Onderdonk. 

36.  What  were  you  then  saying  to  him  ? 

I  do  not  suppose  that  I  recollect  every  thing.  I  remember  we  spoke  of  the 
roughness  of  the  roads  in  the  Indian  country. 

37.  Did  you  speak  then  in  your  oidinary  tone  * 

Yes,  sir.  During  a  part  of  the  time,  Mr.  Butler  joined  in  the  conversation.  I 
recollect  hearing  Bishop  Onderdonk  speak  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ten  Broeck,  and  of 
having  received  a  letter  from  him,  a  part  of  which  I  think  he  read  aloud. 

38.  Were  the  roads  so  rough  as  to  require  a  distinct  tone  of  voice  ? 


21 

The  rattling  of  the  carriage  was  such,  as  to  require  it.     It  had  beeii  .Jning  ;  *»*i 
roads  were  very  heavy. 
By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

39.  .Had  you  any  conversation  with  Bishop  Onderdonk  after  you  left  the  back  seat * 
I  have  stated  that  I  had  not. 

40.  How  far  is  the  Indian  country  from  Syracuse?. 

I  do  not  recollect.  I  think  from  five  to  ten  miles.  I  am  not  certain. ,  My  im- 
pression is,  that  it  is  within  from  five  to  ten  miles  from  Syracuse. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

35.  How  great  a  distance  does  the  road  run  through  the  Indian  tract  \ 
I  do  not  recollect.     I  do  not  think  more  than  fivQ  miles 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

4 1 .  Was  there  much  space  on  the  seat  between  you  and  the  Bishop  * 

It  was  an  ordinary  sized  carriage,  a  barouche  wagon  —  what  they  call  a 
•'  carryall." 

By  Bishop  Brownell.  .  . 

42.  Were  you  in  the  Indian  country  when  you  had  the  conversation  alluded  to 
with  the  Bishop  ? 

0  no,  sir  ;  it  was  just  after  we  left  Ithaca,  or  between  that  and  our  first  stopping- 
place,  Dryden. 

By  Bishop  Whittingham. 
,    43.  When  did  you  tell  Mr.  Butler  that  the  Bishop' was  so  violent,  &c.  ? 

1  whispered  it  to  him  as  he  drew  me  forward  upon  the  front  seat. 
•By  Bishop  Ives.  .  • 

44.  Did  you  make  any  excuse  at  the  time' for  going  te  the  front  seat  ? 

I  do  not  recollect  making  any  at  all.  I  was  excessively  agitated.  I  do  not 
recollect  distinctly  any  thing  from  that  time  until  we  reached  Dryden — I  mean  any 
thing  that  occurred  in  the  carriage.  •  . 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

36.  Did  your  husband  sit  with  his  face  towards  the  back  seat,  or  towards  the 
horses? 

Towards  the  horses. 

The  Court  adjourned  to  six  o'clock  this  evening. 

\itest 
W.'  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk, 

Saturday,  December  14&,  1844,  \ 
6  o'clock,  P.  M.  $ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut.  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina.  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ; 
the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the.  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  an,d  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  called  in  the  Re'v.  .Clement  M.  Butler, 
Miss  Jane-  O.  Rudderow,  Miss.  Helen  M.  Rudderow.  the  Rev.  James  A. 
Bolles,  and  the  Rev.  Jesse  Pound;  who  were  severally  sworn  by  Dayton 
Hobart,  Esq.,  commissioner.  '  . 

The  Rev.  CLE.VENT  M.  BUTLER  was  examined. 

Direct  examination. 

1.  WTiat  i?  your  vocation,  and  where  do  you  reside  1 

I  am  a  m-nister  of  the.  Protestant  Episcopal- Church  in  the  city  of  Boston. 


2.  When,  and  by  whom,  and  at  what  place  were  you  ordained  Priest! 

On  the  2d  of  June,  1837,  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benj.  T.  Onderdonk,  at  St.  Paul's 
Church,  Syracuse. 

3.  On  the  Bishop's  approach  to  Syracuse  on  that  occasion,  where  did  you  meet 
him  1  In  what  vehicle  was  you,  and  who  accompanied  you  ! 

At  Ithaca,  in  a  two-horse-carriage — I  scarcely  know  how  to  describe  it — the 
cover  springing  from  the  back,  and  extending  over  the  front  seat.  Mr.  Peck  and 
my  wife,  Mrs.  Butler,  accompanied  'me. 

4.  Who  returned  with  you  in  the  carriage  ] 
Mr.  Peck,  my  wife,  and  Bishop  Onderdonk. 

5.  How  were  the  parties  seated  in  the  carriage  V 

Mr.  Peek  and  myself  on  the  front  seat.  Bishop  Onderdonk  and  my  wife  on  the 
back  seat ;  my  wife  behind  me,  the  Bishop  behind  Mr.  Peck. 

6.  What  distance  did  you  ride,  and  on  what  day,  and  at  what  time  of  day  did 
you  s.lart  on  your  return! 

About  fifty  miles ;  just  before  sunset  on  the  first  day  of  June,  the  day  next  pre- 
ceding my  ordination. 

7.  What  occurred  during  the  ride  from  Ithaca  to  Syracuse,  as  far  as  you  discov- 
ered, between  Bishop  Onderdonk  and  Mrs.  Butler1? 

I  first  noticed  the  Bishop's  arm  about  my  wife's  waist ;  I  saw  him  draw  her  to- 
wards him  in  a  manner  that  I  thought  indelicate ;  I  saw  her  gently  remove  his 
hand  from  behind  from  off  her  waist.  A  second  time  I  saw  his  arm  about  her 
waist;  again  I  saw  that  he  was"  sitting  without  his  arm  about  her  waist.  Looking 
again  I  saw  it  again  about  her  waist.  My  attention  was  then  turned  to  the  front 
part  of  the  carriage.  Looking  around  again,  I  saw  my  wife  slightly  raised,  carry-* 
ing  the  Bishop's  hand  around  to  his  knee.  Then  I  heard  her  say,  that  that  hand 
was  a  sacred  thing  to  her  ;  it  had  been  laid  upon  the  heads  of  many  of  her  friends  in 
confirmation,  and  was  to  be  laid  upon  my  head  to-morrow.  Nothing  occurred  af- 
ter this,  until  my  wife  touched  me  upon  the  shoulder..  She  said  she  could  not 
sit  there,  that  she  must  come  over  with  me.  As  she  came  over  and  sat  in  my  lap, 
I  asked  her  what  had  happened.  She  whispered  to  me,  and  I  understood  her  to 
say  that  the  Bishop  had  been  very  rude  to  her,  and  had  attempted  to  pull  up  her 
clothes.  She  was  very  much  agitated,  and  told  me  she  would  tell  hie  at  the 
next  stopping-place  more  fully.  We  arrived,  I  think,  al  Dryden  ;  myself  and  wife 
went  into  a  separate  room  to  take  some  refreshment.  There  she  told  me  the  Bishop 
had  put  his  arm  around  her  waist, .and  pressed  her.  bosom  with  sudden  and  violent 
motion.  She  struck  down  his  hand  ;  he  placed  it  upon  her  thigh,  and  grasped  it  . 
hard.  There  was  nothin'g  in  this  that  led  me  to  change  my  opinion,  at  the  time, 
that  she  had  told  me  the  Bishop  attempted  to  pull  up  her  clothes.  I  then  told  her 
I  must  speak  to  the  Bishop ;  t'nat  I  would  not  return  with  him ;  that  I  would  not 
be  ordained  by  him.  She  soothed  me,  and  dissuaded  me,  saying  that  the  Bishop 
might  have  taken  more"  wine  than  he  was  aware  of,  and  did  not  know  what  he  was 
doing.  She  also  said  I  was  not  in  a  Fit  state  of  mind  to  speak  to  him.  I  promised 
her  for  the  present  that  I  would  not  speak  to  him.  We  then  rode  to  Homer.  I 
'revolved  on  the  way  what  I  ought  to  do.  I  concluded  'that  I  would  be  ordained, 
say  nothing  about  it,  treat  the  Bishop  with  the  civility  that  my  official  relation  re- 
quired, and  with  no  more.  The  next  stopping-place  was  about  twelve  miles  from 
Syracuse,  where  we  breakfasted.  We  arrived  in  Syracuse  about  ten  o'clock.  I 
was  examined  at  the  house  of  General  Granger  by  old  Mr.  Pardee.  Service  com- 
menced at  eleven  o'clock,  and  I  was  ordained  Priest  by  Bishop' Onderdonk. 

8.  What  .was  the  appearance  of  Bishop  Onderdonk  when  Mrs.  Butler  spoke  to 
him  about  the  character  of  his  hand  ? 

I  do- not  remember  that  he  said  any  thing,  and  I  believe  he  was  embarrassed. 

9.  Did  or  did  not  the  Bishop  appear  to  be  excited  by  spirituous  or  vinous  liquor  T 
He  did. 

10.  What  were  the  indications  of  such  excitement? 

Very  high  spirits  and  thickness  of  speech,  first  noticed  by  me  when  he  was  read- 
ing a  letter  from  Mr.  Ten  Broeck  1 

11.  Did  the  Bishop  take  any  spirituous  liquor  during  the  journey? 
Not  that  I  know  of. 


1-2.  Did  Mrs.  Butler  remain  on  the  front  seat  daring  the  whole  night* 
Yes. 

13.  Did  the  Bishop  make  any  remark  about  her  removal? 

:  that  I  remember. 

14.  Did  he  request  her  daring  the  night  to  return  to  the  back  seat  ? 
I  did  not  hear  him. 

1 5.  During  any  part  of  the  drive,  did  you  sit  on  the  back  seat  with  the  Bishop  ? 
My  first  impression  was  that  I  did  not ;  on  recalling  circumstances,  I  think  that 

I  did  from  the  breakfasting  place. 

16.  Did  any,  and  what  conversation  pass  between  you  and  the  Bishop  while  sit- 
ting on  the  back  seat  together  ! 

The  only  conversation  I  recollect  was  about  the  badness  of  the  roads  in  the  In- 
dian country,  compared  with  some  others  the  Bishop  had  lately  passed  over. 
IT.  Did  Mrs.  Butler  witness  your  ordination  ? 
No. 

18.  After  the  occurrences  spoken  of,  was  Mrs.  Boiler  indisposed  !  and  if  so,  for 
what  length  of  time  ? 

She  was  sick  for  about  a  week.  I  then  took  her  to  Pompey  Hill,  because  she 
was  still  very  feeble.  In  a  few  days  she  was  taken  sick  again,  and  I  returned  with 
her.  She  remained  very  sick  between  two  and  three  months. 

19.  What  was  the  cause  of  that  illness  ? 

I  always  attributed  it  in  the  first  instance  to  her  very  great  excitement  and  dis- 
tress during  that  ride. 

20.  When,  and  to  whom,  did  you  first  communicate  the  knowledge  of  these  cir- 
cumstanc- 

Never,  until  I  heard  rumors  of  a  similar  kind.  First,  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lucas, 
of  Auburn,  in  the  fall  of  the  same  year.  » 

•2 1 .  To  whom,  and  when,  did  you  next  communicate  the  knowledge  of  these 
circumstances  ! 

According  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Irving  and  the  Rer. 
Mr.  Gallagher,  at  Palmyra,  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  1839.  I  had  previously 
told  old  Mr.  Hubbard,  of  Stillwater,  a*  tie  Special  Convention  at  Utica,  that  I 
knew  of  such  a  case. 

•2-2.  Besides  these,  to  whom  did  you  teli  it,  and  when,  previous  to  the  last  Gen- 
eral Convention  I 

I  told  it  to  Mrs.  Isaac  Lawrence,  I  cannot  remember  when.  I  mentioned  it  to 
Bishop  Meade,  on  a  visit  to  luro  at  Millwood,  in  1840  I  think,  in  the  spring  of  that 
year.  I  mentioned  it  to  Dr.  Hcnshaw,  when  I  was  a  missionary  at  Baltimore, 
during  the  winter  of  184*— **  •  Besides  these,  I  do  not  remember  having  mentioned 
it  to  others,  though  I  may  have  done  so.  After  the  rumors  of  investigation  in 
the  Seminary,  after  1  was  applied  to  to  give  my  testimony  on  this  subject  before 
the  Committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  affairs  of  the  Seminary,  I  told  it  to 
some  persons  ia  Boston. 

23.  Did  you  &ne  ^th  &e  Bishop  on  the  day  of  your  ordination ;  and  if  you  did, 
at  what  place,  and  under  what  circumstances  ? 

I  did  not. 

•24.  ^>Tiere  did  the  Bishop  dine  on  that  day  ? 

I  thini  ac  William  Cook's. 

26.  Was  you  invited  to  dine  there  1 

i  was. 

Cross-Examination. 

1.  Was  there  a  back  to  the  front  seat  of  the  carriage  upon  which  yon  and  the 
driver  sat  ? 

I  think  there  was. 

2.  How  then  did  your  wife  get  from  the  back  seat,  and  sit  upon  your  lap  ?    Did 
she  climb  over  that  back  1 

She  came  over  very  quickly,  I  believe  over  the  back. 

3.  After  she  got  upon  your  lap,  did  she  sit  with  her  feet  towards  the  horses  or 
towards  the  back  seat  ? 

Towards  the  horses,  with  a  carpet-bag  and  trunk  I  think  immediately  before  us. 


24 

4.  Did  she  continue  sitting  in  that  way  all  the  rest  of  the  journey  until  you  got 
upon  the  back  seat  with  the  Bishop  ? 

She  sat  upon  my  lap  until  we  reached  Dryden,  and  after  that  alternated  between 
sitting  on  my  lap  and  on  the  carpet-bag  in  front,  all  the  rest  of  the  way,  until  I 
changed  my  seat. 

5.  You  have  stated  that  you  saw  the  Bishop  put  his  arm  two  or  three  times 
around  the  waist  of  your  wife,  and  her  put  it  away ;  were  you  looking  then  at  the 
Bishop  ? 

I  was  sitting  sideway  on  the  seat,  so  that  I  could  see  my  wife  and  the  Bishop 
distinctly,  and  was  talking  with  them  both. 

6.  Must  not  the  Bishop  then  have  known  that  you  was  looking  at  him  ? 
Yes,  sir. 

7.  Did  you  then  make  any  observation  either  to  your  wife  or  to  the  Bishop  on 
the  subject  ? 

I  made  none  to  the  Bishop.     I  had  no  opportunity  to  make  any  to  my  wife. 

8.  How  happened  it,  sir,  when  you  saw  the  Bishop  taking  indelicate  liberties 
with  your  wife,  that  you  said  nothing  to  him  or  to  your  wife  1 

Because  I  was  unwilling  to  expose  the  Bishop  before  Mr.  Peck,  and  because, 
although  I  thought  it  was  indelicate,  I  did  not  think  it  of  such  a  character  as  to 
call  for  remark  from  me  at  the  time. 

9.  How  far  is  it  from  Ithaca  to  Dryden  ? 
I  think  about  twelve  miles. 

10.  Did  all  the  improprieties  that  occurred  between  the  Bishop  and  your  wife 
occur  during  that  twelve  miles  ? 

Yes,  sir. 

11.  How  long  did  you  stop  at  Dryden  ? 

Long'enough  to  rest  the  horses  and  take  some  refreshment. 

12.  Did  the  Bishop  take  refreshment  in  company  with  you  and  your  wife  ? 
No,  sir. 

13.  Did  he  take  any  refreshment  at  all  at  Dryden  ? 
Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

14.  Durjng  the  whole  of  the  time  that  the  Bishop  and  your  wife  sat  upon  the 
back  seat,  were  you  turned  towards  them  so  rtiat  you  could  see  them  1 

While  it  continued  light  enough  to  see,  I  vra&  turned  towards  them  the  greater 
part  of  the  time. 

15.  Was  this  a  dark,  or  a  moonlight  night  ] 

It  was  a  cloudy  night,  and  very  dark  during  one  pan  of  it. 

16.  Was  the  extreme  darkness  you  speak  of  after  yen  left  Dryden,  or  before 
you  arrived  there] 

I  cannot  remember — I  only  remember  that  Mr.  Peck  got  out  on  one  occasion 
to  find  the  road,  because  it  was  so  dark. 

17.  Did  you  hear  the  conversation  that  took  place  between  yotr  wife  and  the 
Bishop,  while  they  sat  together  on  the  back  seat  1 

I  heard  and  joined  in  conversation.  I  do  not  remember  what  it  was,  except  that 
the  Bishop  talked  much  of  the  bad  roads  he  had  passed  over,  and  we  ot  the  bad 
roads  we  had  passed  over,  particularly  through  the  Indian  country. 

18.  Was  there  any  conversation  about  the  badness  of  the  roads  through  the  In- 
dian country  until  you  got  upon  those  roads  ? 

Yes,  there  was :  we  told  him  what  a  bad  road  we  would  have  to  pass  over. 

19.  Have  yon  any  recollection  of  the  Bishop's  having  got  into  a  sound  sleep, 
while  sitting  on  the  seat  by  your  wife  1 

No ;  and  I  feel  sure  that  he  did  not,  because  the  conversation  did  not  fail  up  to 
the  time  of  her  changing  her  seat. 

20.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  your  wife  having  complained  to  the  Bishop 
or  to  you,  that  night,  that  she  felt  chilly  or  cold  before  leaving  the  seat  with  the 
Bishop  ? 

None. 

21.  Are  you  sure  that  the  carpet-bag  you  speak  of,  was  between  the  front  seat 
and  horses,  or  was  it  between  the  front  and  back  seat? 

I  feel  confident  that  it  waa  between  the  front  seat  and  the  horses. 


25 

22.  This  back  that  you  have  spoken  of,  to  the  front  seat,  was  it  a  wooden  back 
or  a  leather  strap  ? 

I  cannot  recollect. 

23.  Have  you  ever,  since  this  occurred,  spoken  to  the  Bishop  on  the  subject  ? 
I  have  avoided  speaking  to  him  upon  this  or  any  other  subject. 

f  24.  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood  as  saying,  that  you  have  never  had  any  con- 
versation with  the  Bishop  since  you  were  ordained  ? 

I  mean  to  be  understood  to  say,  that  I  never  have  had  when  I  could  avoid  it. 

25.  How  often  have  you  conversed  with  him  since,  when  you  could  not  avoid 
it,  and  upon  what  occasions  ? 

I  cannot  remember  precisely  how  often.  The  first  occasion  was  his  passing 
through  Syracuse  keeping  some  appointment.  I  heard  of  his  being  at  Syracuse 
House,  but  did  not  go  until  word  was  sent  me  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  Ves- 
try. There,  I  sat  with  him,  conversing  with  him,  with  other  gentlemen,  until  a 
carriage  was  provided  for  him  to  go  on  with  his  appointments. 

26.  Did  you  then  meet  him  in  a  friendly  manner ? 

I  treated  him  as  I  had  determined  to  do,  with  civility,  no  more. 

27.  You  say  that  one  of  your  vestrymen  sent  to  let  you  know  the  Bishop  was 
there.     Did  you  know  he  was  there  before  you  got  such  information  ? 

Yes,  sir.     I  heard  it  through  some  source  which  I  have  forgotten. 

28.  How  long  before  ? 
Perhaps  half  an  hour. 

29.  Do  you  remembei  any  other  occasion  on  which  you  saw  him  and  conversed 
with  him,  when  you  could  not  avoid  it  ? 

I  was  at  the  Convention  at  Utica,  and  do  not  recollect  speaking  to  him  except  in 
the  aisle  of  the  church,  as  he  was  entering  the  church.  He  shook  hands  with  me, 
and  rapidly  passed  on.  There  was  nothing  more  than  the  morning  salutation.- 

30.  Do  you  remember  any  other  occasion  on  which  you  have  spoken  to  him  1 
I  unexpectedly  to  myself  met  him  at  dinner  at  Mr.  Irving's,  in  Geneva. 

31.  Did  you  converse  with  him  there  ? 
Yes,  sir. 

32.  Was  this  dinner  at  Mr.  Irving's  before  or  after  you  had  told  Mr.  Irving  the 
circumstances  in  relation  to  your  wife  ? 

I  think  it  was  after,  and  am  confirmed  in  this  opinion  by  Mr.  Irving's  recently 
relating  at  my  table,  in  Boston,  his  noticing  my  coldness  of  manner  towards  the 
Bishop  and  his  embarrassment  to  me. 

33.  Did  you  go  by  invitation  to  dine  at  Mr.  Irving's  that  day?, 
I  did. 

34.  Did  you  not  know  that  the  Bishop  was  to  dine  there  1 
I  did  not. 

35.  Are  these  the  only  times  you  have  seen  the  Bishop  to  speak  with  him  since 
your  ordination? 

I  cannot  recall  any  other  times. 

36.  When  you  communicated  these  facts  to  Mr.  Lucas,  did  you  request  him  to 
say  nothing  about  it  to  anybody ' 

I  believe  I  did. 

37.  When  you  mentioned  them  to  Mr.  Irving,  did  you  make  the  same  request  of 
him? 

I  did. 

38.  How  was  it  with  Bishop  Meade  when  you  communicated  to  him, — did  you 
make  the  same  request  there  too  ? 

I  do  not  remember  that  I  did. 

39.  What  induced  you  to  go  to  Philadelphia  during  the  sitting  of  the  last  General 
Convention  ?  .  ' 

To  hear  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  and  to  forward  the  interests  of  a  new 
publication  about  to  be  commenced  at  Boston. 

40.  Had  you  received  any  letter  upon  this  subject  from  any  person  in  Philadel- 
phia, before  you  went  there? 

I  received  no  letter  from  any  person  in  Philadelphia  on  the  subject. 

41.  Had  you  a  letter  from  any  other  place  ? 

.4 


26 

Previous  to  the  examination  of  the  committee  on  the  affairs  of  the  Seminary,  I 
received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Gallagher,  asking  me  if  I  was  willing  to  give  my  testi- 
mony with  regard  to  Bishop  Onderdonk's  treatment  of  my  wife ;  and  also  one  from 
Mr.  Barnwell,  to  the  same  effect. 

42.  When  were  these  letters  received  :  before  you  went  to  Philadelphia  ? 
Yes  :  the  letter  of  Mr.  Gallagher  is  dated  Sept.  25. 

43.  Did  you  know  then,  before  you  left  Boston,  that  when  you  got  to  Philadel- 
phia you  would  be  requested  to  go  before  the  Committee  you  have  spoken  of? 

No,  I  thought  I  should  not. 

44.  Why  did  you  think  so,  after  having  received  those  letters  ] 

I  had  engaged  to  go  with  Dr.  Vinton,  at  the  beginning  of  the  session  of  the 
General  Convention.  I  had  declined  to  go  with  him  after  the  receipt  of  these 
letters,  for  fear  that  I  should  be  called  upon  to  give  my  testimony  on  this  subject, 
which  I  had  declined  doing  before  the  Committee  appointed  to  examine  into  the 
affairs  of  the  Seminary.  Not  hearing  of  any  movement  of  examining  into  the  case, 
I  thought  I  could  go  on  without  my  testimony  being  required. 

45.  You  have  stated  that  you  were  afraid  to  go  on  with  Dr.  Vinton,  lest  you  might 
be  called  on  to  testify  as  to  these  circumstances — do  I  now  understand  you  that 
these  fears  were  dissipated  from  the  mere  fact  that  you  had  not  heard  at  Boston  of 
any  steps  being  taken  in  relation  to  any  investigation  of  the  conduct  of  Bishop 
Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  ? 

Yes ;  because  Dr.  Vinton  had  promised  to  write  to  me  if  any  thing  of  interest 
to  me  occurred. 

46.  Had  you  not  a  conversation  with  your  wife  on  this  subject,  shortly  before 
you  left  Boston  for  Philadelphia  ? 

I  had  several  conversations  with  her  after  the  receipt  of  the  letters  of  Mr.  Gal- 
lagher and  Mr.  Barnwell. 

47.  Aft^r  your  arrival  in  Philadelphia,  who  first  spoke  to  you  on  this  subject  ? 
I  really  cannot  recollect. 

48.  Did  you  make  an  affidavit  there  ! 
Yes. 

49.  Who  drew  that  affidavit  t 
I  drew  it. 

50.  At  whose  request  ? 

I  cannot  say  it  was  at  the  request  of  any  one.  Bishop  Meade  asked  me  if  I 
would  be  willing  to  give  my  testimony  in  the  case.  I  said  I  .would,  and  I  then 
drew  the  affidavit. 

51.  Do  you  remember  that  any  body  had  spoken  to  you  before  Bishop  Meade,  on 
that  subject  T 

Dr.  Tyng  said  to  me,  when  he  met  me,  "  So  you  have  been  sent  for,  have  you  ?" 
and  I  said,  "  No."  I  recollect  Mr.  Gallagher's  speaking  to  me,  but  whether  before 
or  after,  I  cannot  remember.  I  recollect,  the  morning  that  I  drew  up  the  affidavit, 
Mr.  Gallagher  and  Dr.  Hawks  were  walking  together  ;  Mr.  Gallagher  asked  me  if  I 
had  drawn  up  my  affidavit.  I  told  him  I  had  not.  He  said  it  was  time  I  should  do  so. 

52.  Did  Dr.  Hawks  make  any  remark  1 

I  asked  Mr.  Gallagher,  and  he  told  me,  if  I  would  ask  Dr.  Hawks,  he  would  tell 
me  how  to  do  it.  I  asked  Dr.  Hawks  if  any  legal  form  or  phraseology  was  neces- 
sary. He  answered  that  all  that  was  accessary  was  a  simple  statement  of  the 
facts  as  they  occurred.  That  is  all  I  said  to  him,  or  he  to  me,  on  the  subject. 

53.  If  I  recollect  right,  you  said  that  Mr.  Gallagher  was  one  of  the  gentlemen 
to  whom  you  mentioned  these  circumstances. 

I  did. 

54.  Did  you  enjoin  secrecy  upon  him  at  the  same  time  T 
I  did  so,  and  received  the  following  letter. 

[Copy.] 
Rev.  and  dear  Brother:  NEW  YoRK'  SeP'-  25>  1844' 

After  so  long  an  interval  of  silence,  I  am  pained  to  renew  an  intercourse,  for- 
merly so  agreeable  'to  myself,  by  reverting  to  a  subject  which,  to  a  mind  like 


27 

yours,  must  be  attended  with  sensations  of  a  revolting  nature.1  I  trust,  however, 
that  a  sense  of  duty,  which  could  alone  induce  me  to  address  you  upon  such  a  sub- 
ject, will  overcome  your  instinctive  repugnance  so  far,  at  least,  as  to  leave  you  free 
to  consider  what  course  it  becomes  you  to  adopt  in  view  of  the  demands  of  truth 
and  righteousness.  I  am  led  to  address  you  in  consequence  of  a  conversation  which 
I  have  held  to-day  with  our  brethren  Messrs.  Trapier  and  Barnwell,  who  have  been 
appointed,  as  you  are  aware,  on  a  Committee  to  investigate  _the  truth  of  rumors  af- 
fecting the  Seminary.  Among  other  subjects,  the  reports  of  various  immoralities 
alleged  against  Bishop  B.  T.  Onderdonk,  which  have  long  been  afloat,  have  been 
deemed  within  the  scope  of  their  inquiries  from  his  connection  with  the  Institution. 
I  was  surprised  to  learn  from  them  that  your  name  had  been  mentioned  as  one  who 
had  been  exceedingly  aggrieved,  and. would  testify  to  the  most  serious  delinquencies. 
You  will  remember  a  conversation  which  I  had  with  you  in  the  year  1839,  at  Pal- 
myra, in  which  you  recounted  the  aggravated  injuries  which  you  had  suffered.  I 
had  regarded  this.in  so  confidential  a  light  as  never  to  have  mentioned  your  name  in 
connection  with  that  of  the  Bishop,  save  on  one  occasion,  to  our  common  friend 
the  Rev.  Stuart  Hanckel,  and  that  accompanied  by  the  strictest  injunction  of  secre- 
cy. I  find,  however,  that  Mr.  Hanckel  has  inadvertently  communicated  the  affair 
to  Mr.  Barnwell,  who,  not  being  aware  of  .the  confidential  nature  of  the  communica- 
tion, felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  make  it  a  subject  of  inquiry.  I  stated  to  him  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  divulged  r..-ithout  your  consent,  upon  which  he  expressed  an  inten- 
tion to  write  you  on  the  subject.  While  I  deeply  regret  that  I  have  been  uninten- 
tionally the  means  of  thus  far  extending  the  knowledge  of  a  transaction  of  so  pain- 
ful a 'nature,  (which  I  have  learned,  however,  since  my  arrival  in  this  city,  is  ex- 
tensively known  here,)  I  trust  that  you  will  be  willing  to  mqke  that  sacrifice  of 
feeling  which  the  present  crisis  and  the  leadings  of  retributive  Providence  seem  to 
demand.  How  much  of  the  disgrace  which  has  been  brought  upon  the  Church  by  this 
guilty  individual  might  have  been  avoided  if  his  grievous  immoralities  had  met  with 
that  timely  exposure  which  justice  demanded  !  Now  that  the  question  of  exposure 
has  been  providentially  revived,  must  not  a  serious  responsibility  rest  with  those 
who,  by  concealment,  would  be  instrumental  in  continuing  a  wicked  man  in  a  posi- 
tion in  which  he  cannot  fail  to  exercise  a  fatal  influence  in  the  Church?  In  this 
opinion  our  friend  Irving,  to  whom  you  confided  likewise  the  affair,  fully  concurs. 
Should  you  express  to  the  Committee  your  willingness  to  testify,  and  should  it  be 
considered  by  the  brethren  who  have  been  engaged  in  this  matter  a  duty  to  pursue  it 
to  trial,  your  evidence  would  not  be  given  before  a  Convention  agitated  by  party 
feeling,  but  before  a  Court  of  Bishops,  where  there  would  be  no  pccasion  of  publici- 
ty, or  danger  of  an  unnecessary  infringement  of  delicacy.  It  would  be  accompa- 
nied by  testimony,  which,  should  you  consent  to  appear,  can  be  amply  obtained,  to 
various  other  acts  of  intemperance  and  licentiousness.  It  would  come  up  freed  from 
any  plausible  imputation  of  party  persecution,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Trapier,  who  is  one 
of  those  who  would  engage  in  the  presentation,  is  known  to  be  a  strict  High 
Churchman.  As  your  decision  upon  this  subject  involves  interests  of  great  magni- 
tude, and  lasting  importance  to  the  purity  of  the  Church,  I  trust  that  every  personal 
consideration  will  be  waived,  and  the  severe  demands  of  duty,  however  painful, 
faithfully  met. 

That  God  may  guide  you,  in  this  and  in  all  things,  .to  a  right  judgment,  is  the 
sincere  prayer  of 

Your1  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

J.  B.  GALLAGHER. 

P.  S. — I  should  be  gratified  to  hear  from  you  as  early  as  practicable.  Address 
me,  to  the  care  of  Hamilton  Murray,  Esq.,  No.  58  Pine-street,  New  York. 

Rev.  C.  M.  Butler. 

55.  Did  you  answer  that  letter  ? 

I  did.  I  declined  to  appear,  on  the  ground  that  if  ample  testimony  could  be  ob- 
tained to  various  other  acts  of  intemperance  and  licentiousness, — regarding,  as  1 
did  at  the  time,  the  word  licentiousness  as  having  reference  to  overt  acts, — I  did 
not  think  that  I  ought  to  be  called  upon  to  testify. 

56.  How  came  you  to  change  your  mind  upon  that  subject,  and  consent  to  testify ! 


28 

Because,  when  T  arrived  at  Philadelphia,  I  found,  by  Mr.  Gallagher's  expla- 
nation of  his  letter,  that  he  had  in  mind  such  cases  as  this  of  which  I  had  know- 
.  ledge,  an.d  that  it  was. important  that  my  testimony  should 'be  given.     Besides  this, 
as  it  had  bsen  well  known  that  I  had  stated  these  facts,  I  felt  called  upon,  as  an 
honorable  man,  to  abide  by  the  statement,  if  a  trial  should  be  instituted 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Ives, 

1..  Did  you  always  repeat  these  circumstances  with  the  aggravated  one  of  the 
Bishop's  attempting  to  lift  the  clothes  of  your  wife] 

•Not  always.  Sometimes  I.  stated  the  general  fact  of  her  being  insulted  in  the 
carriage.  *  •  • 

2.  Can  you  tell  in  what  cases  you  did  repeat  this  aggravating  circumstance  ? 
I  cannot 

3.  Did  you  make  affidavit  to  that  circumstance  ? 

Yes  ;  and  whenever,  I  should  be  called  upon  to  state  the  circumstances  in  detail. 
I  should  have  mentioned  that  fact,  because  it  was  my  strong  impression,  from  the 
first  account  given  to  me  by  my  wife.  \  bad  never  talked  with  her  about  the  de- 
tails, after  the  first  conversation. 

4.  Do  you  mean  after  the  first  conversation,  to  the  date  of  the  affidavit  1 
I  do.  . 

5.  What  then  were  the  various  conversations  you  spoke  of  as  had  with  your 
•  wife  on  this  subject,  before  leaving  Boston  ? 

It  was  upon  Ine  painfulness  of  the  whole  matter,  and  her  reluctance  to  have  to 
testify  to  it,  all  in  a  very  general  way.  , 

6.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  the  Rer.  Mr.  Norwood  of  Virginia,  on  this 
subject  ? 

I  cannot  remember  that  I  did ;  I  will  not  say  that  I  did  not. 

7.  Did  you  ever  have  a  conversation  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks  on  this  subject, 
prior  to  the  one  related  &s  occurring  at  the  General  Convention  ? 

•Never.  .  .     . 

By  Bishop  DC  Lancey. 

8.  How  long  an  interval  elapsed  between  the  times  of  Bishop  Onderdonk's  put- 
ting his  arm  arobnd  your  wife  ? 

.  A  short  time ;  1  should  say  not  more  than  five  or  ten  minutes. 

9.  What  interval  Occurrjed  between  the  time  of  her  speaking  about  the  sanctity 
of  his  hand,  and  her  removal  to  the  front  seat  ? 

•   A  somewhat  lo'nger  interval;  so  that  it  became  from  thick  dusk  quite  dark — 
fifteen  or  twenty  minutes. 

10.  At  what  time  of  the  night,  then,  did  she  come  to  sit  on  your  lap, — before 
dark,  or  after  ] 

,   After  dark. 

11.  Did  the  indelicacies  which  you  saw,  take  place  nearer  to  Dryden  or. to 
Ithaca  ? 

Nearer  to  Itliaca — -.soon  after  ascending  the  hill. 

12.  How  far  were  you  from-  Dryden  when  she  removed  to  the  front  seat  ? 
I  cannot  remember ;  I  only  remember  that  the  ride  seemed  long. 

13.  Did  Mrs.  Butler  say  any  thing  at  Dryden  about  the  Bishop's  attempting  to 
lift  her  clothes  ? 

She  said  nothing  to  counteract  my  .first  impression  with  regard  to  it ;  and  added 
a  circumstance  -that  she  had  not  told  me  .when  she  first  came  on  my  lap ;  that  ib, 
the  movement  of  her  dress  as  he  grasped  her  thigh. 

14.  Did  she  ever  correct  your  misapprehension  about  the  Bishop's  attempt  to 
lift  her  clothes  ? 

After  I  showed  her  the  .affidavit,  which  I  had  made  at  Philadelphia,  she  then 
said  that  I  had  misapprehended  ;  that  what  she  had  said  was,  she  did  not  know 
but  the. Bishop  was  about  to  pull  up  her  clothes  ;  and  I  understood  her  as  saying 
that  he  attempted  to  do  so. 

15.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  person,  while  you  were  in' Western  New  York,  re- 


29 

ler  to  this  story,  connected  with  the  statement  of  the  Bishop's  attempt  to  lift  her 
clothes  ? 

I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  did. 

16.  Did  you  ever  speak  of  this  subject  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hale,  of  Geneva. 

I  cannot  recollect  that  I  did.  I  will  not  say  that  I  did  not.  I  was  very  inti- 
mate with  him. 

1 7.  Did  you  ever  speak  to  any  one  about  these  circumstances,  at  Utica,  during 
the  Special  Convention  of  '38,  and  if  so,  to  whom  1 

Mr.  Hubbard  mentioned  the  rumor  of  what  Mr.  Bolles  had  said,  and  I  mention- 
ed that  I  knew  of  a  similar  case.  That  is  the  only  person  to  whom  I  remember 
to  have  mentioned  the  circumstance. 

18.  Upon  the  ride  from  Ithaca  to   Syracuse,  did  you  or  did  your  wife  go  to 
sleep  1 

It  is  my  strong  impression  that  we  did  not  either  of  us. 

19.  Was  the  Bishop's  embarrassment  when  Mrs.  Butler  spoke  to  him  about  his 
hand,  very  perceptible  to  the  eye  ? 

It  was  perceptible  by  his  casting  down  his  eye,  and  more  evident  to  me  from 
his  making  no  rejoinder,  more  than  a  cold  assent  of  "  Yes." 

20.  Did  you  observe  in  the  topics  of  conversation  with  the  Bishop  any  indica- 
tions of  intoxication  ? 

I  do  not  remember  the  topics  of  the  conversation,  further  than  the  one  I 
have  mentioned. 

By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

21.  Were  your  relations  with  the  Respondent  perfectly  friendly  before  the  oc- 
currence of  this  ride  ? 

Perfectly  so.  so  far  as  I  know. 

22.  Did  I  understand  you  that  you  were  examined  by  tout  one  .person  before 
your  ordination  1 

I  was  examined  by  but  one  person.  Some  other  person  came  into  the  room  . 
during  the  examination.  The  examination  consisted  of  four  or  five  questions. 

23.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  the  constitution  of  Mrs.  Butler  was  permanently  af- 
fected by  the  occurrence  on  that  ride  !  . 

It  is  most  decidedly  :  for  she  was  extremely  agitated,  and  went  immediately  to 
bed  on  her  return  home. 

24.  Did  you  ever  mention  this  occurrence  to  your  father  1 
Never,  because  I  was  unwilling  to  give  him  pain. 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

25.  Had  any  thing  led  you  to  be  suspicious  of  the  character  of  the  Bishop  be- 
fore this  ride,  so  that  you  kept  your  eye  upon  him  ? 

I  had  heard  at  Syracuse  of  the  Bishop's  drinking  too  much  wine  at  the  Syra- 
cuse House  with  Mr.  Todrig,  but  never  of  improprieties  of  this  kind. 

26.  I  understood  you  to  say,  that  you  first  mentioned  this  occurrence  in  the  fall 
of  1837  ;  was  it  because  you  then  heard  of  any  thing  of  this  kind! 

It  was.  '    • 

27.  Was  Mrs.  Butler  perfectly  well  before  this  ride  ;  in  good  hearth  ! 

She  was  of  a  delicate  constitution,  but  enjoyed  good  health  up  to  this  time  from 
her  marriage. 

28.  How  was  she  affected  ? 

She  was  taken  at  that  time  with  fainting  and  sick  turns. 

29.  How  long  did  these  continue "? 

I  cannot  specify.     I  only  remember  she  was  very  feeble  during  all  that  period.  . 

30.  What  symptoms  of  disease  followed  this  ? 

After  her  return  from  Pompey,  she  had  a  succession  of  sick  and  fainting  turns, 
by  which  she  was  very  much  prostrated. 

31.  Does  she  continue  out  of  health  now? 

She  is  of  a  very  delicate  constitution,  easily  prostrated  by  exposure  and  fa- 
tigue. 

32.  Have  you  apprehended  any  thing  like  symptoms  of  consumption  ? 

I  always  have,  from  my  first  acquaintance  with  her,  previous  to  her  marriage. 

33.  "\\  as  she  of  the  temperament  commonly  called  nervous  ? 


Not  more  than  ordinarily. 

34.  Do  you  remember  on  what  day  it  was,  that  you  met  Mr.  Gallagher  and 
Dr.  Hawks  together  ? 

No,  I  cannot  remember. 

35.  Was  it  before  the  subject  of  Dr.  Hawks'  consecration  came  up  in  the  Gen- 
eral Convention,  or  after  ? 

It  was  after. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

36.  Have  you  any  children  ? 
Yes,  sir,  two. 

37.  What  is  the  age  of  them  respectively  ? 

The  one  is  upwards  of  six  years  old,  the  other  is  two  and  a  half;  the  elder  was 
born  on  the  3d  of  April,  1838. 

38.  Has  Mrs.  Butler  ever  had  any  miscarriages  1 

She  gave  birth  to  a  child,  which  died  one  half  hour  after  birth,  at  Palmyra  ? 

39.  Was  her  constitution,  in  your  judgment,  affected  by  that  circumstance. 

No  more  than  the  birth  of  any  child  would  affect  a  person  of  delicate  constitution. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

36.  Did  you  know  at  what  time  the  memorial  upon  this  subject  was  introduced 
to  the  House  of  Bishops  1 

I  did  not.  I  did  not  know  that  such  a  memorial  had  been  made,  until  after  my 
arrival  in  Philadelphia. 

37.  On  your  arrival  in  Philadelphia,  did  you  understand  that  there  had  been 
such  a  memorial  ? 

Soon  after  my  arrival  I  heard  of  it. 

38.  Did  you  hear  of  it  as  having  been  presented  to  the  House  of  Bishops  ? 
.    I  heard  that  a  memorial  had  been  presented. 

39.  Did  you  hear  that  before  you  met  Mr.  Gallagher  and  Dr.  Hawks,  in  the 
way  you  have  testified  ? 

I  am  confident  I  did. 

40.  Was  Mrs.  Butler,  at  the  time  of  your  ordination,  a  communicant  of  this 
Church) 

She  was. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  to  meet  on  Monday,  the  16th  inst.,  at  half 
past  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Monday,  December  Wth,  1844, 
half-past  9  o'clock,  A.M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ; 
the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diccese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Respondent  introduced  to  the  Court,  David  Graham, 
Esq.,  as  his  associate  Counsel. 

The  Rev.  JAMES  A.  BOLLES,  having  been  swom  in  Court  on  Saturday, 
the  14th,  was  called. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  vocation,  and  where  do  you  live  ? 

I  am  a  clergyman,  Rector  of  St.  James's  Church,  Bafavia,  Western  New  York. 


31 

2.  How  long  have  you  been  a  clergyman  ? 
Eleven  years. 

3.  In  August,  1838,  did  you  accompany  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Onderdonk,  of 
New  York,  in  a  stage-coach,  anywhere,  and  where  ? 

I  did ;  but  I  am  not  certain  whether  we  took  the  stage  at  Batavia  or  at  Le  Roy. 
My  impression  is,  that  we  took  a  private  conveyance  to  Le  Roy,  and  there,  after 
dinner,  took  the  stage  for  Utica. 

4.  Who,  besides  you  and  the  Bishop,  were  in  the  stage,  and  how  were  the  par- 
ties located  ? 

As  near  as  I  can  remember,  there  were  four  persons  in  the  stage  when  we  got 
in.  The  Bishop  and  myself  took  the  middle  seat ;  upon  the  back  seat,  there  was 
a  young  woman,  and,  I  think,  a  little  girl ;  there  was,  I  think,  a  man  and  a  boy 
sitting  upon  the  front  seat.  I  am  pretty  certain.  I  have  an  idea  that  there  was  a 
person  in  the  stage  having  a  large  bundle,  but  whether  on  that  occasion,  or  some 
other,  I  am  not  positive. 

5.  Did  the  same  passengers  continue  in  the  stage  until  your  arrival  at  Utica? 
They  did  not. 

6.  Who  left? 

I  believe  they  all  left  before  we  arrived  at  Utica ;  they  were  way-passengers. 

7.  Did  you  know  any  of  these  passengers,  besides  Bishop  Onderdonk  ? 
No,  sir. 

8.  Did  the  Bishop  continue  on  the  same  seat  with  you  until  your  arrival  at  Utica, 
and  if  not,  to  what  seat  did  he  remove  ? 

I  do  not  remember  that  the  Bishop  removed  from  the  seat  at  all ;  but  the  stage 
stopping  at  Canandaigua,  and  taking  a  different  set  of  passengers,  I  am  unable  to 
say  on  which  seat  the  Bishop  did  ride  from  Canandaigua. 

9.  During  any  part  of  jthis  ride,  did  the  Bishop  sit  upon  a  seat  with  a  young 
lady? 

Not  that  I  remember. 

10.  Was  there  any  conversation  between  the  Bishop  and  any  young  lady,  or  a 
lady  in  the  stage  ? 

There  was. 

11.  When  and  where  did  the  conversation  take  place? 

I  should  think  it  commenced  very  soon  after  we  left  Le  Roy,  and  continued  until 
the  lady  left  the  stage.  I  do.  not  mean  to  say  that  this  was  an  incessant  conversa- 
tion with  the  young  lady  ;  the  passengers  generally  conversed,  as  passengers  do  in 
a  stage-coach. 

12.  Who  was  this  young  lady  ? 
I  do  not  know. 

13.  Did  the  Bishop  know  her  ? 
I  presume  not. 

14.  What  occurred  between  this  young  lady  and  the  Bishop  in  the  stage  ? 
The  Bishop  took  her  hand,  and  conversed  with  her  in  that  position. 

15.  Is  that  all  the  Bishop  did  to  her? 
I  did  not  see  him  do  any  thing  more. 

16.  'Did  he  put  his  arm  about  her  ? 
Not  that  I  saw. 

17.  Did  the  lady  withdraw  her  hand,  or  seem  in  any  other  way  annoyed  by  the 
Bishop's  conduct  ? 

She  did  withdraw  her  hand,  and  seemed  to  be  somewhat  embarrassed. 

18.  What  did  she  do  ? 

I  do  not  remember  that  she  showed  this  embarrassment  in  any  other  way  than  by 
slightly  blushing. 

19.  Did  she  withdraw  herself  at  a  greater  distance  than   she  was  from  the 
Bishop? 

Not  that  I  remember  ;  I  should  think  not. 

20.  How  long  did  the  Bishop  hold  her  hand  ? 

I  think  the  occurrence  took  place  in  this  way  :  the  Bishop  turned  around  to  con- 
verse with  her,  and  the  lady  put  her  hand  upon  the  strap  which  crossed  between 
the  seals,  and  the  Bishop  put  his  hand  upon  hers,  and  she  very  soon  withdrew  it. 


.  3      '  » -."  •  ••*••'.?    '  i 

32 

21.  Did  the  lady  leave  the  stage  in  consequence  of  this  familiarity"?  , 

•  That  I  cannot  say. 

22.  Did  she  leave  the  stage  before  ^he  arrived  at  her -journey's  end?1 

•  She  left  the  stage  at  Lhna.;  and  I  previously  understaod  her  to  say  that  she  in- 
tended to  go  on  to  Bloomfieki  or  Canandaigua -,  I  do  not, remember  which. 

23.  What  4id  the  Bishop  converse  about  with  the. lady  ? 

That  I  am  unable  to  say.  'I  only  remember  that  some  conversation  occurred 
about  the  country  as  we  were  passing— that  is,  as  to  the  particulars  of  the  conver- 
sation— and  the  Bishop  took  the  little  girl' and  lifted  her  up  to  show  her  something 
out  of  the  window,  about  which -they  were  conversing.  . 

24.  How  large  was  this  little  girl  | 
Eight  or  ten  years  old,  I  think. 

25.  Was  ?he  in  company  with  the  lady  ! 

•  I  have  been  trying  to  recollect  whether  the  little  giri  got  out  with  the  lady,  or 
whether  she  belonged  .to  the  man  with  the  boy  ;  and  I  do  not  remember  when  or 
where  she  got.  out.    • 

26.  Is  your  recollection  fresh  as  to  the  circumstances  ihat  occurred  on  that  occa- 
sion? .  . 

It  is  not.  •.''.'.••••       .'. 

•  27,  Was  there  any  thing  in  the  manner  of  the  Bishop  towards  that  lady  which 
seemed  to  you;  at  the  time  indelicate  or  improper? 

•  I  thought  at  the  time  that  it  was  foolish  and  indiscreet,  liable  to  misconstruction. 
.28.  Did  you  regard  the  mere  taking  of  the   lady's  hand  on  that  occasion  as 

foolish  and  indiscreet  ? 

Yes.  sir.  •"  • 

29.  Did  you  ever,  and  when,  recapitulate  these  circumstances  to  the  Bishop  ? 
•      I  had  a.  conversation  with  the  Bishop  about  them,  soon  after  this,  at  the  time  of 

the  Convention  at  Utica.  I  think  I  did  not  'fr  recapitulate  these  circumstances  to 
the  Bishop."  •  ". 

30.  Did  you,  during  the  session  of  that  Convention;  and  while  the  facts  were 
fresh  in  your  recollection,  communicate  the  knowledge  of  them  to  any  person,  and 
to  whom  ?  '.''.'. 

[This  question  was'  objected  to  hy  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  as  tending  to 
impeach  or  correct  the  party's  own  witness. 

The  Court  sustained  the  objection  ;  the  Bishop  of  Ohio  dissenting,  on  the  ground 
that  the. question  went  to  ascertain  the  strength  and  nature  of  the  impression  made 
on  the  mind  of  the  witness  at  the  time,  by  the  transaction  concerning  which  he  was 
giving  evidence. ] 

•  31.  Did  any  thing  else  besides  that  which  you  .have  already  stated,  occur  between 
the  Bishop  and  the  lady,  during  their  ride  together  in' the  stage  ? 

.  A'  circumstance  has  occurred  since  I  came  tp  this  city,  to  remind  me  that  the 
Bishop  took  the  hand  of  the  lady  again,  after  she  had  taken  it  from  the  strap  ;  but 
I  do  not  distinctly  recollect  it.  ' 

32.  What  was  the  circumstance  that  occurred  to  remind  you  of  what  you  have 
stated  I     (Objected  to  and  overruled.) 

33.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  wha't  occurred  besides  what  you  have  stated •? 
No,  I  have  'not. 

34.  You  say  you.  had  a  coriyergation  vyith  the   Bishop  immediately  after,  at 
Utica ;  what  was  that  conversation  * 

I  cannot  say  what  I  said,  to  th-e  Bishop,  or  particularly  what  he  said  to  me  ;  but 
substantially,  I  went  to  the  Bishop  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  a  report  which 
had  gone  abrpad,  and  also  stating  to  him  precisely  what  I  had  said.  I  called  upon 
the  indiyidual  who  went  with  me  to  whom  I  had  stated  it,  to  say  to  the  Bishop 
what  I  had  said.  Dr.  Hawks  stated  to  the  Bishop -what  I  had  said,  and  where 
there  was  a  difference  of  recollection  I  corrected  the  Doctor. 

•  35-  What'djid  the  Doctor  state,  and  wherein  did  you  correct  him  I 

The  Doctor  stated  that  the  Bishop's  hand  wa.s  somewhere  near,  or  oiv,  or  at  the 
lady's  private  parts  ;  I  corrected  the  Doctor  by  saying  that  it  was  not  so. 
36.   What  was  your  correction — how  did  ryou  state  it  was  1 
That  is  the  circumstance'  to  which  I  referred  a  short  time  ago,  as  refreshing  my 


33 

recollection,  as  to  the  Bishop's  taking  the  lady's  hand  a  second  time  ;  and  I  am 
quite  sure  that  my  correction  consisted  in  saying  that  the  Bishop's  hand  was  near 
the  lady's  lap.  His  hand  rested  over  the  strap. 

37.  What  else  did  Dr.  Hawks  say  at  that  time  1 

I  think  that,  with  the  exception  of  that,  the  statement  was  veiy  much  as  I  have 
given  it.  I  do  not  remember  any  other  disagreement. 

38.  Do  you  remember  nothing  else  that  was  said  by  Dr.  Hawks,  or  by  yourself, 
to  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ? 

I  remember  that  I  expressed  to  the  Bishop  my  regret  that  I  had  mentioned  what 
had  occurred.  When  the  subject  of  the  lady's  leaving  the  stage  was  mentioned 
to  me  a  little  while  ago  in  this  examination,  and  I  was  asked  the  reason,  I  said  1 
did  not  knoiv  why ;  but  at  the  time  I  drew  the  inference  that  the  lady  stopped  be- 
fore she  had  arrived  whither  she  was  going.  In  our  conversation  with  the  Bishop 
that  subject  came  up ;  and  I  remember  that  he  spoke  of  the  impropriety  of  draw- 
ing any  such  inference.  I  remember  nothing  else  stated  by  me  or  by  Dr.  Hawks 
in  that  conversation. 

39.  What  did  the  Bishop  say  in  that  conversation  ? 

I  think  the  Bishop  expressed  his  surprise,  and  did  not  know  at  first  to  whom.  I 
referred.  He  asked  me  something  about  the  little  girl — whether  it  was  her,  I  think  ; 
I  told  him  it  was  not  her,  but  the  other.  The  Bishop,  as  far  as  I  remember,  neither 
affirmed  nor  denied  the  facts.  The  witness  desires  to  explain.  I  referred  by 
facts  to  whatever  transpired,  and  to  what  I  said,  and  the  Doctor  said  for  me  at 
that  time. 

40.  In  that  conversation  you  spoke  of  having  regretted  that  you  had  mentioned 
the  subject.     To  whom  did  you  say  that  you  had  mentioned  it ! 

To  Dr.  Hawks. 

41.  Did  you  refer  to  any  other  person  1 

I  did  not,  and  I  do  not  remember  having  mentioned  it  to  any  other  person  at 
that  time. 

42.  What  time  do  you  mean  ? 

The  first  and  only  person  that  I  mentioned  this  to  was  Dr.  Hawks,  before  the 
conversation  with  the  Bishop  referred  to.  Dr.  Hawks,  in  this  conversation  with 
the  Bishop,  stated  that  he  (Dr.  Hawks)  had  mentioned  the  circumstance  to  another 
individual.  Dr.  Hawks  made  tJiis  statement  by  way  of  apology  for  what  had  oc- 
curred, and  to  exculpate  himself  from  the  charge  of  blame  for  having  made  this 
public. 

43.  Was  the  name  of  that  person  used  in  this  conversation ;  and  if  so,  what  was  it  ? 
I  do  not  remembe^  that  it  was/' 

44.  Was  any  ttmg  further  said  by  the  Bishop,  on  that  occasion? 
I  do  not  remember  any  thing. 

45.  Any  tiling  in  reference  to  communicating  the  result  of  that  interview  to 
other  persons  1 

I  do  not  remember.  We  shook  hands  with  the  Bishop  when  we  came  away, 
and  expressed  ourselves  satisfied  of  his  integrity,  and  that  he  had  no  evil  intentions. 

46.  Was  any  thing  said  about  imprudence? 

No,  sir,  I  do  not  think  there  was.  We  did  not  go  to  reprove  the  Bishop,  but 
rather  to  explain  my  agency  in  the  exaggerated  reports  which  had  been  made  out 
of  what  I  had  told  to  Dr.  Hawks. 

47.  Was  the  statement  of  Dr.  Hawks,  made  to  Bishop  Onderdonk,  correct  in 
all  respects,  except  so  far  as  amended  by  you  at  that  tune  ? 

I  do  not  remember  any  other  correction  now,  but  there  may  have  been. 

48.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  these  transactions  at  the  time  ? 

I  have  an  impression  that  I  did — I  believe  I  did — but  I  have  not  been  able  to 
find  it. 

49.  Did  you  show  that  memorandum  to  any  person,  and  to  whom  1 
Not  to  any  one,  that  I  remember. 

50.  What  induced  you  to  mention  these  circumstances  to  Dr.  Hawks  at  the 
time  ?     [This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  as  tend- 
ing to  elicit  the  opinion  of  the  witness,  and  not  facts.     The  Court  sustained  the 
objection.] 

6 


34 

51.  Have  you  any  further  recollection  of  what  occurred  in  the  stage  ? 

I  have  not.  I  have  a  recollection  that  I  was  exceedingly  surprised  at  Utioa, 
that  there  had  been  any  thing  made  out  of  my  conversation  with  Dr.  Hawks,  to 
the  extent  which  was  talked  of. 

Cross-  Examina  tion . 

1.  When  you  say  in  your  direct  examination  that  in  this  conversation  with  the 
Bishop,  at  Utica,  he  neither  admitted  nor  denied  the  facts  stated  by  you  or  for  you, 
do  you  mean  to  be  understood  in  speaking  of  the  (acts  as  they  were,  after  you  had 
corrected  Dr.  Hawks  ] 

Certainly  I  do.  I  corrected  him  immediately,  and  was  surprised  that  he  said 
what  he  did. 

2.  Have  you  any  doubt  in  your  own  mind  that  there  were  two  persons  sitting  on 
the  front  seat  of  the  stage  during  the  time  that  this  lady  you  have  spoken  of  was  in 
the  stage  ? 

No,  I  have  not. 

3.  Was  this  in  the  day-time  or  in  the  evening  1 
In  the  day-time. 

4.  Did  these  persons  who  sat  upon  the  front  seat,  sit  with  their  backs  to  the 
horses,  or  to  you  and  the  Bishop  ? 

They  sat  with  their  backs  to  the  horses,  facing  the  Bishop. and  myself. 

5.  Are  you  certain  that  this  lady  left  the  stage  at  a  place  short  of  the  one  at 
which  she  intended  to  leave  it  ? 

No,  I  am  not. 

By  the  Court, 
By  Bishop  Ives. 

.   1.  Are  you  certain  in  your  own  mind  that  the  Bishop  did  not  know  this  lady  * 
I  have  never  thought  that  he  did,  yet  I  cannot  say  that  he  did  not. 

2.  After  this  conversation  with  the  Bishop  did  Dr.  Hawks  express  any  opinion 
whether  it  was  a  sufficient  explanation  or  not  as  to  the  Bishop's  conduct  1 

I  do  not  remember  any  expression  of  opinion.  I  remember  that  we  both  shook 
hands  with  the  Bishop. 

3.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Dr.  Hawks  subsequently  on  this  subject 
immediately,  I  mean  ? 

I  do  not  remember  any  immediately ;  the  subject  was  dropped,  as  I  understood. 

4.  Have  you  since  had  any  conversation  with  Dr.  Hawks  on  the  subject  ? 
(Waived  for  the  present.) 

By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

5.  You  said  you  remembered  the  Bishop  spoke  of  the  impropriety  of  your  draw- 
ing a  certain  inference  concerning  the  lady's  leaving  the  stage,    What  was  that 
inference  1 

The  inference  was,  that  she  had  left  the  stage  before  reaching  her  place  of  des- 
tination. 

6.  What  was  the  impropriety  complained  of  by  the  Bishop  ?  * 

I  thought  that  the  young  lady  was  somewhat  embarrassed  by  the  Bishop's  atten- 
tions, and  that  she  left  the  stage  before  she  had  intended  to. 

7.  Did  the  Bishop  complain  of  your  having  inferred  the  lady  left  the  stage  in 
any  degree  on  account  of  his  conduct  towards  her  ? 

Yes,  sir  :  he  thought  there  was  no  ground  for  such  an  inference. 

8.  When  you  and  Dr.  Hawks  left  the  Bishop,  after  the  conversation  with  him 
at  Utica,  you  expressed  yourself  satisfied  that  the  Bishop  had  no  evil  intentions 
in  the  matter  referred  to  in  that  conversation — had  you  before  that  conversation 
supposed  or  suspected  that  he  had  evil  intentions? 

No,  I  had  not  any  such  idea. 
By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

9.  Did  you  yourself  converse  with  the  lady  in  the  stage  ? 
Yes. 

10.  Did  the  lady  partake  in  the  conversation  ? 
She  did. 


35 

11.  Did  the  lady  say  any  thing  to  indicate  that  she  left  the  stage  in  consequence 
of  the  Bishop's  taking  her  hand  ? 

We  all  got  out  of  the  stage  at  Lima ;  it  was  the  place  for  changing  horses ;  and 
I  thought  the  way  in  which  the  lady  said  she  would  not  go  any  further,  was  indica- 
tive of  some  little  feeling.  She  said,  "You  may  take  my  trunk  down,  I  will  not 
go  any  further." 

10.  In  regard  to  your  visit  to  the  Bishop  with  Dr.  Hawks,  at  Utica,  was  the  Bishop 
requested  by  you  or  Dr.  Hawks  to  state  or  explain  what  did  occur  in  the  stage  ! 

Xo.  sir,  he  \vas  not.  • 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

13.  Did  you  hear  the  lady  express  any  intention  as  to  the  place  to  which  she 
was  going,  before  she  left  the  stage  ? 

I  think  she  had  previously  spoken  of  going  to  Bloomfield  or  Canandaigua,  and 
hence  I  noticed  her  getting  out  at  Lima. 

14.  If  she  had  expressed  no  such  purpose,  would  you  have  been  struck 'with  her 
leaving  the  stage  as  she  did  ? 

I  think  I  would  not. 

15.  Who  helped  her  out  of  the  stage  * 

I  do  not  know  ;  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  the  Bishop  did. 

16.  Did  the  little  girl  go  with  her  * 
I  cannot  say. 

17.  Did  any  one  accompany  her  to  the  public  house  at  which  she  stopped  * 
I  think  not.     Neither  the  Bishop  nor  myself  went  into  the  house. 

18.  Was  the  Convention  at  Utica  a  Slated  or  Special  Convention  * 
I  think  it  was  a  Special  Convention. 

19.  Are  you  not  certain  that  it  was  ? 
I  am  not. 

20.  What  special  subject  was  to  e«ne  before  that  Convention1? 

The  division  of  the  Diocese  ;  a»l  it  ir<w  a  Special  Convention  ;  we  had  an  ad- 
journed Special  Convention  afterwards,  I  think  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

21.  Had  there  been  any  conversation,  or  was  there  then  current  in  the  Dio- 
cese any  conversation,  as' to  an  assistant  to  Bishop  Onderdonk,  if  the  Diocese 
were  not  divided  ? 

Yes,  sir,  there  was 

22.  What  names  *"ere  prominent  as  candidates  ? 
(Waived  for  tfc  present.) 

By  Bishop  Gadsd«i- 

23.  The  Presentment  says  that  the  Bishop  put  his  arm  around  the  body  of  the 
youn<r  w-jman  :  did  you  witness  any.  thing  of  the  kind  ? 

I  dV  not. 

2/.  The  Presentment  says  that  the  Bishop  took  other  indecent  liberties  with 
l&r  person  :  what  were  they  * 

This  Presentment  has  been  drawn  up  without  any  conversation  with  me  by  the 
Presenters.  I  saw  no  indecent  liberties ;  I  saw  none  that  I  considered  indecent 
liberties,  or  that  could  come  under  that  name". 

25.  So  far  as  you  know,  did  the  said  young  woman  endeavor  to  get  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  1 

'  No,  sir. 

26.  Was  the  lady  seated  directly  behind  the  Bishop,  or  diagonally  1 

The  lady  and  a  little  girl  were  on  the  back  seat.  The  Bishop  and  myself  were 
on  the  middle  seat.  The  Bishop,  to  converse  with  her,  turned  around  ;  and  that 
would  leave  the  lady  more  in  a  diagonal  direction  from  him  than  immediately  be- 
hind him. 

By  Bishop  Ives. 

27.  Did  the  young;  woman  sit  dyrectly.  behind  the  Bishop  or  yourself? 
Behind  the  Bishop. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

52.  la  your  interview  wilh  the  Bishop,  accompanied  by  Dr.  Hawks,  did  you 
understand  that  Dr.  Hawks  had  seen  the  Bishop  before  on  this  subject  ? 


36 

No,  I  did  not. 

53.  What  was  your  understanding  on  the  subject  * 

I  am  very  sure  that  he  had  not.     I  know  he  felt  a  little  unwilling  to  go  with  me. 

54.  Where  was  this  interview  ? 

I  believe  it  was  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Hollister,  the  house  where  the  Bishop  was 
staying. 

55.  In  the  conversation,  did  Bishop  Onderdonk  say  that  he  had  been  spoken  to 
before  on  the  subject,  or  was  this  the  first  knowledge  that  he  had  that  this  matter 
had  been  spoken  of? 

I  have  always  supposed  that  this  was  the  first  knowledge  the  Bishop  had  of  it. 

56.  Was  not  this  meeting  in  a  church,  or  in  the  Vestry-room  of  a  church  ? 
No,  sir. 

57.  Who  was  with  the  Bishop  when  you  went  to  see  him  ? 

I  have  a  recollection  of  our  going  from  one  room  to  another — a  parlor — where 
we  might  be  alone.  Who  was  present  I  know  not. 

58.  Was  Dr.  Taylor  there  ? 

0  no,  I  tlank  not.     He  was  not  present  at  the  interview,  and  I  think  he  was 
not  there  when  we  went  in.     I  remember  his  being  consulted  about  our  going. 

59.  Consulted  by  whom  "? 

1  think  I  saw  him  ;   but  whether  Dr.  Hawks  was  with  me,  I  know  not.     I  know 
he  (Dr.  Hawks)  objected  to  going. 

60.  Did  you  consult  Dr.  Taylor  ?     (Objected  to,  and  waived  for  the  present.) 

61.  Who  commenced  the  conversation  with  the  Bishop,  you  or  Dr.  Hawka  ? 
I  believe  that  I  did. 

62.  Can  you  now  recollect  what  vrere  the  terms  employed  by  you  in  the  com- 
mencement of  that  conversation  T 

I  do  not  remember  the  terms,  nor  the  language,  but  I  do  remember  substantially, 
that  I  said  to  the  Bishop  that  an  unfortunate  occurrence  had  taken  place — that  I 
had  mentioned  a  small  occurrence  that  took  pace  during  our  ride.  I  think  I  then 
mentioned  the  fact  that  Dr.  Bayard  had  been  to  «qe  and  told  me  that  this  circum- 
stance had  been  greatly  exaggerated,  and  that  I  ha*  come  there  for  the  purpose  of 
an  explanation.  I  referred  to  Dr.  Hawks  to  tett  the  Hishop  what  I  had  said. 

63.  Did  you  say  any  thing  to  the  Bishop  at  that  time  a'»out  having  communicated 
it  to  any  other  person  than  Dr.  Hawks  ?       t 

I  did  not.  Dr..  Hawks  mentioned  that  he  had  comnxmicav;d  it  to  Dr.  Taylor, 
and  he  (Dr.  Hawks)  threw  the  blame  upon  Dr.  Taylor,  so  far  as  there  was 
any. 

64.  Did  you  say  in  that  conversation  that  you  had  spoken  to  Dr.  1  iylor  about  it  ? 
Not  that  I  remember. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

6.  When  you  arrived  at  Lima,  you  have  stated  that  you  all  got  out  of  \he  sUo-e 
and  that  the  lady  said  to  the  driver,  "  Take  off  my  trunk,  I  will  go  no  further" — w^ 
this  said  by  her  before  she  went  into  the  house  ;  or  had  she  been  in  the  house,  and 
then  did  she  come  out  and  give  this  Direction  1 

She  said  this  just  as  she  got  out  of  the  stage,  before  she  had  been  in  the  house. 

7.  Did  she  meet  any  friends  there  ? 

I  do  not  know.  She  was  undoubtedly  acquainted  in  that  part  of  the  country. 
She  lived  about  there  somewhere.  I  inferred  this  from  her  being  a  way-passen- 
ger, from  her  having  a  small  hair  trunk  on  the  seat  with  the  driver,  and  from  her 
conversation. 

8.  You  observed,  sir,  in  your  direct  examination,  that  you  understood  that  it  was 
her  intention  to  proceed  in  the  stage  as  far  as  Bloomfield,  or  Canandaigua.     Did 
you  understand  that  it  was  her  intention  to  go  on  with  you  on  that  day,  and  not  to 
stop  at  any  intermediate  place  ' 

No,  I  do  not  know  that  any  thing  was  said  about  it 

Direct  Examination' resumed. 

65.  You  said  the  Bishop  lifted  up  the  little  girl,  and  she  sat  on  the  back  seat. 
How  did  he  do  this  * 


He  lifted  her  up  over  the  strap,  and  showed  her  something  out  of  the  window.  I 
remembered  nothing  about  it,  except  as  it  was  referred  to  in  the  conversation 
with  the  Bishop  :  then  I  remembered  it. 

66.  Did  he  replace  the  little  girl  on  the  back  seat,  or  did  she  remain  on  the  mid- 
dle seat  1 

I  do  not  remember. 

67.  Did  any  other  passenger  besides  yourself  notice,  as  far  as  you  discovered,  the 
intimacy  between  the  Bishop  and  the  lady  ? 

Not  that  I  know  of.     Nothing  was  said  to  me  about  it. 

68.  You  have  said  that  the  lady  showed  some  feeling.    After  further  taxing  your 
recollection,  can  you  say  whether  she  said  any  thing,  and  what? 

My  statement  as  to  her  feeling,  referred  to  her  getting  out  of  the  stage,  and  to 
what  she  said  to  the  driver. 

69.  Did  the  lady  hear  you  address  the  Bishop  by  his  title  ? 
I  presume  she  did. 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  Ives. 

28.  At  this  time — I  mean  the  time  of  your  relating  this  matter  first,  or  before 
the  occurrence — had  you  heard  of  any  other  case  of  like  impropriety  alleged  of 
the  Bishop  ? 

I  had  heard  the  case  of  Mrs.  Butler — not  before  the  occurrence,  but  at  the  Con- 
vention, before  I  related  this.  And  if  I  had  not  heard  that,  I  should  probably  not 
have  spoken  of  this.  » 

29.  From  whom  did  you  hear  it  ? 

I  think  I  heard  it  from  Dr.  Hawks, 
By  Bishop  Hopkins. 

30.  Was  the  Bishop  seated  at  your  right  hand,  or  at  your  left  ? 
I  think  the  Bishop  was  at  the  left. 

31.  When  he  turned  around  to  converse  with  the  lady,  did  he  turn  towards  you 
or  from  you  1 

He  turned  towards  me. 

32.  When  he  took  hold  of  her  hand  the  second  time,  as  it  lay  near  her  lap,  how 
long  did  he  keep  hold  of  '* ' 

I  do  not  know.     I  «AOuld  think  not  more  than  two  or  three  minutes. 

33.  You  said  s^  seemed  embarrassed,  and  blushed  slightly  :  was  this  when  the 
Bishop  had  h^  °f  her  hand  the  first  or  the  second  time  1 

Both  ti^s- 

34.  md  the  lady  make  no  attempt  to  withdraw  her  hand  the  second  time,  nor 
otherwise  notice  it? 

I  did  not  observe  any  attempt. 
By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

35.  What  interval  of  time  occurred  between  the  Bishop's  taking  her  hand  the 
first  and  second  time  ? 

I  cannot  remember. 

36.  Can  you  say  about  what  interval  you  suppose  it  was  ? 

No,  sir.     I  do  not  recollect  any  thing  which  would  enable  me  to  judge ;  but  I 
should  think  not  a  long  time. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

9.  How  long  were  you  with  the  Bishop  in  the  stage  with  this  lady  ? 
From  Leroy  to  Lima,  twenty-two  miles. 

10.  About  what  time? 
Between  three  and  four  hours. 

1 1 .  Did  the  stage  stop  between  Leroy  and  Lima  ? 

It  stopped  two  or  three  times — probably  at  Avon  for  the  passengers  to  get  out. 

,,  T,  By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

37.  About  what  period  of  the  journey  did  these  things  take  place  ? 

They  commenced  pretty  soon — perhaps  after  we  had  gone  half  way  from  Leroy 
to  Lima. 


38 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

38.  Did  the  Bishop  seem  desirous  to  avoid  observation  of  what  he  was  doing  ? 
No,  sir. 

39.  Did  what  he  did,  seem  to  attract  the  attention  of  those  on  the  front  seat  T 
Not  that  I  remember. 

40.  Were  you  anxious  lest  it  should? 
I  think  I  was. 

41.  Do  you  remember  doing  anything  to  divert  the  Bishop's  mind,  so  that  those 
on  the  front  seat  might  not  observe  it ! 

•No,  I  do  not. 

42.  Did  you  at  any  such  time  yourself  address  the  lady,  to  interrupt  any  such 
proceedings  1 

I  do  not  remember  addressing  her  for  that  purpose. 
By  Bishop  Brownell. 

43.  Was  the  lady  particularly  reserved  during  the  latter  part  of  the  journey,  or 
was  she  as  free  to  converse  as  during  the  first  part  ? 

I  have  no  recollection  of  any  difference  in  that  respect. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

12.  Did  these  occurrences  of  which  you  have  spoken — I  now  mean  the  Bishop's 
taking  hold  of  her  hand  while  iri  the  stage,  in  the  manner  you  have  stated — occur 
before  your  arrival  at  Avon,  or  after  1 

After  we  left  Avon,  and  a  short  time  before  we  reached  Lima.  I  perhaps  should 
not  have  thought  of  the  occurrence ;  but  there  being  a  large  Methodist  school  at 
Lima,  I  did  not  know  but  this  girl  might  be  a  Methodist,  and  misconstrue  the 
Bishop's  conduct,  so  as  to  injure  our  Church  in  that  vicinity.  It  made  a  deeper  im- 
pression on  my  mind  from  that  circumstance. 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

44.  Did  any  conversation  take  place  between  the  Bishop  and  the  lady  after  the 
last  taking  of  her  hand  1 

Yes. 

45.  Was  that  conversation  in  an  ordinary  tone  of  voice,,or  in  a  ^pressed  voice  T 
In  an  ordinary  tone  of  voice. 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

46.  How  old  did  this  lady  seem  to  be  T 
I  should  think  abbut  twenty-five. 

47.  Was  any  thing  said  of  her  going  to  the  school  at  Lima,  either  as  scholar  or 
teacher  ? 

Nothing  that  I  remember. 

48.  Was  any  thing  said  of  the  little  girl  being  taken  to  the  school  ? 
Nothing  that  I  remember. 

49.  Did  the  lady  express  any  interest  in  the  school  1 

The  school  was  an  object  of  sight  and  conversation  before  we  reached  Lima.  It 
stands  upon  high  ground.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  thing  to  enable  me  to  say 
that  the  girl  understood  any  more  than  that  it  was  a  Methodist  school. 

50.  Did  it  never  occur  to  you  that  she  might  have  been  connected  with  the 
school,  or  had  friends  there  ? 

I  cannot  say  that  it  did. 
By  Bishop  Ives. 

51.  Was  there  any  thing  singular  in  her  dress  in  any  way? 
She  was  a  plain  country  girl — plain  in  her  dress. 

By  Bishop  Henshaw.        , 

52.  You  said    you   were   apprehensive  that   misconstruction  of  the    Bishop's 
conduct  might  do  injury  to  the  Church  in  that  vicinity — had  you  any  fear  that  a 
faithful  report  of  it  would  prove  injurious? 

No,  I  had  not,  in  connection  with  the  fact  of  his  being  a  Bishop.  In  a  notoriously 
bad  man  such  conduct  would  have  been  indicative  of  a  bad  design  ;  but  it  did  not 


39 

occur  to  me,  nor  do  I  think,  that  the  Bishop  had  any  impure  or  lustful  desires  to- 
wards the  woman. 
.    By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

53.  Was  if  merely  your  reliance  upon  the  character  of  the  Bishop  that  prevent- 
ed you  from  supposing  that  his  conduct  proceeded  from  improper  desires  ? 

No,  sir.  ;Any  man  of  good  character  in  the  community — it  would  be  wrong  to  at- 
tribute improper  desires-to  him,  simply  in  consequence  of  any  thing  which  had  oc- 
curred. •  . 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

'54.  Did  you  hear  of  the  occurrences  with  Mrs.  Butler  before  you  mentioned  this 
at  all?  .  . 

.  I  think  the  occurrence  with  Mrs.  Butler  was  mentioned  at  the  time,  and  .before 
I  mentioned  this,  in  the  same  conversation. 

55.  Did  you  attach  serious  importance  to  this  occurrence  before  tha.t  of  Mrs. 
Butler  was  mentioned  ?      '  .  .   / 

I  did  not. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

70.  After  the  case  of  Mrs.  Butler  w*as  mentioned,  did  you  attach  serious  impor- 
tance to  what  you  saw  in  the  stage  T 

No,  sir,  I  did  not.  I  was  greatly  turprised  when  I  found  t>ai  it  was  so  regarded 
by  others.  '  i  •  . 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

56,  In  the'  case  of  Mrs.  Butler,,  as  it  was  stated  **•  y»o>  was  there  any  mention 
of  an  attempt  to  lift  her  clothes  ? 

No,  sir.  . 

.Miss  HELEN  M.  RUDDEROW,, havir^r  6een  stroro  in  Court  on  Saturday, 
the  14th,  was  called. 

!    •  •       Direr*  Examination. 

1.  Where  do  you  live!  . 
Fiftieth-street,  city  of  New  Tort. 

2.  Are  you  the  sister  .of  J»hn  Ruddwow  ?  .    . 
I  am. 

3.  In  the  month  of  Jtfte,.  1841',  did  you  ride  'in  a  carriage  with  Bishop  Onder- 
donk,  of  New  York  * 

I  did.  r 

4:  From  wha-'  place,  and  to  what  place  ? 

From  St.  James's' Church  to  Sixty-first  street,  our  former  residence. 
;    5.  Whei«  is  St.  'James'? Church?  .         .    • 

Sixty-«inth  street, 'Hamilton  Square. 

6.  jWout  what  time  was  that  ? 

1?L15  of  June,  1841.  '   .  . 

?..  Did  you'.sit  on  the  same  seat  with  Jhe  Bishop'in  the  carriage? 

I  did.  • 

8.  Who  was  in  the- carriage  besides?       -  . 

Rev.  James  C.  Richmond. 

.   9.  On  what  seat  of  the  carriage  did  he  sit— with  his  face  towards  you,  or  other- 
wise 1 

On  the  front  seat  of  the  carriage,  not  facing  me. 

10.  Was  there  any  other  person  in  the  carriage  on  the  front  seat? 
There  was  not. 

11.  Did  Mr.  Richmond  drive  the  horses? 
He  did. 

.12.  Was  there  any  other  person  on  the  back  scat,  besides  you  and 'the  Bishop? 
No,  sir. 


40 

13.  State  clearly  and  distinctly  what  the  demeanor  of  the  Bishop  to  you  was,  on 
that  occasion. 

We  had  not  proceeded  very  far  from  the  church,  when  Bishop  Onderdonk  put 
his  arm  around  my  neck,  and  thrust  his  hand  into  my  bosom :  this  he  continued  to 
do.  I  was  very  much  surprised  and  agitated,  and  would  have  jumped  from  the 
carriage,  had  it  not  been  for  exposing  him  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Richmond.  He  kept 
repeating  the  offence  until  we  reached  home,  where  he  was  to  dine  with  us.  I 
immediately  went  to  the  room  occupied  by  my  sister  and  myself,  and  told  her  what 
had  happened.  I  entreated  her  to  go  down  and  entertain  him,  as  the  family  were 
not  yet  prepared  to  do  so ;  she  consented,  upon  condition  that  I  should  follow  as 
soon  as  I  could  sufficiently  compose  myself;  which  I  did,  and  found  my  mother  and 
sister-in-law  with  them. 

14.  Will  you  excuse  me  for  asking  whether  or  not  it  was  upon  your  naked  bosom 
that  the  Bishop  thrust  his  hand  ? 

It  w*s,  sir. 

15.  L-d  or  did  not  his  hand  extend  below  the  top  of  your  dress  ? 
It  did. 

16.  What  remark,  if  any,  did  you  make  to  the  Bishop  in  the  carriage  ? 
I  cannot  reccllect. 

17.  What  did  jou  do  in  the  carriage  * 

I  endeavored  to  insist  the  insult,  but  could  not. 

18.  On. which  side  nf  you  was  the  Bishop  seated? 
On  the  left  side. 

19.  Had  the  Bishop  been  officiating  that  mornin^  in  Church  ? 
He  had. 

20.  Was  it  Sunday? 
It  was. 

21.  Had  there  been  confirmation  that  morning? 
No. 

22.  Did  the  Bishop  remain  and  dint  with  you  ? 
He  did. 

23.  Did  you  live  with  your  brother  ? 
I  did — this  was  his  house. 

24.  Are  you  a  communicant  of  the  Protestani  Episcopal  Church  ? 
I  am. 

25.  Were  you  at  that  time  ? 
I  was. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTING^AM,  Clerk. 

Tuesday,  December  nth,  ^844, 
half-past  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

The  Co'urt  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont. 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Dela- 
ware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachu- 
setts, Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

Cross-Examination. 
Miss  HELEN  M.  RUDDEROW 

1.  What  is' your  present  age  ? 
•Thirty-two. 


41 

2.  Had  you  been  acquainted  with  Bishop  Onderdonk  previous  to  the  occasion  to 
which  you  have  referred  ? 

I  had. 

3.  How  long  had  you  been  acquainted  with  him  previously  1 
Ten  years. 

4.  Had  you  conversed  with  him  frequently  during  that  period  of  ten  years,  or 
at  all  ? 

I  had  conversed  with  him  occasionally. 

5.  Had  you  met  him  at  the  house  of  any  friend  or  relative  during  that  period  * 
I  had  not. 

6.  Where  did  you  meet  him  on  the  occasions  on  which  you  conversed  with  him  * 
At  the  church. 

7.  At  what  church  1 
St.  Paul's  Chapel. 

8.  Was  that  the  extent  of  your  acquaintance  with  him — your  meeting  him  at 
church  and  conversing  with  him  on  those  occasions  ? 

It  was. 

9.  Were  those  meetings  casual  ones,  after  the  service  of  the  Church  was  over  * 
I  sometimes  saw  him  before  service,  as  well  as  after. 

10.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  church  or  in  the  vestry-room  1 

In  the  Church.  • 

11.  Do  you  mean  in  coming  into  JLhe  church,  or  in  going  out  of  it  ? 
Sometimes  the  one,  and  sometimes  the  other. 

12.  Did  any  other  conversation  pass  between  you  and  the  Bishop  on  those  oc- 
casions than  the  ordinary  salutations  ? 

There  did. 

13.  What  was  the  nature  of  those  conversations! 

He  sometimes  spoke  of  the  state  of  the  Sunday-school,  and  religious  matters. 

14.  Have  you  ever,  since  the  occasion  spoken  of  in  your  direct  examination,  met 
Bishop  Onderdonk? 

I  have. 

15.  How  often  1 

Once  since  that  occasion. 

16.  When  and  where  did  you  so  meet  him  ? 

I  saw  him  at  St.  James's  Church  in  July,  1843. 

17.  Was  that  on  Sunday  1 
It  was, 

18.  Did  the  Bishop  officiate  in  that  church  on  that  day  ? 
He  did. 

19.  When  did  you  meet  him  on  that  day  * 

The  Bishop  came  up  to  me  before  morning  service. 

20.  Where  were  you  when  he  came  up  to  you  1 
I  was  in  a  pew,  teaching  a  class. 

21.  Was  any  person  in  company  with  you  at  that  time,  excepting  your  class! 
There  was  not. 

22.  Was  any  person  in  company  with  the  Bishop  at  that  time  ! 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Dowdney  came  to  the  pew-door  with  him. 

23.  Did  Mr.  Dowdney  remain  at  the  pew-door  while  the  Bishop  did  T 
Not  all  the  time. 

24.  Did  the  Bishop  first  address  you,  or  did  you  first  address  the  Bishop  ? 
The  Bishop  first  addressed  me. 

25.  What  did  he  say  1 

He  inquired  after  my  health,  and  the  health  of  our  family. 

26.  Was  there  any  thing  else  in  that  conversation  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  ? 
There  was  not.     With  the  exception  that  he  inquired  after  my  Sunday  scholars, 

and  taught  them  the  Collect  for  the  day. 

27.  Do  I  understand  you  that  after  your  reply  to  his  inquiry,  nothing  further 
passed  between  you  and  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ? 

Nothing  further  than  I  have  stated  about  the  Sunday  scholars. 

6 


42 

28.  Did  the  Bishop  remain  with  you,  or  near  you,  while  teaching  the' Collect  to 
the  scholars  ? 

He  stood  a  short  distance  from  me. 

29.  Whither  did.  he  go  then  ?  '  . 

He  went  to  an  adjoirfing  pew,'and  spoke  to  another  of  the  teachers.    . 

30.  Did  you  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ? 
I  did. 

31.  Did  the  Bishop  officiate  that  morning  in  the  church  ? 
He  preached  the  sermon. 

32.  Did  you  meet  the  Bishop  again  during  that  day  1 

I  met  him  again  in  the  afternoon,  but  did  not  speak  to  him. 

33.  Where  did  you  meet  him  ?  .        . 
At  the  church.  •  ; 

34.'  Was  that  before  or  after  'the  afternoon  service  1  .  • 

It  was  before  the  service  ;  I  mean  before  the  afternoon  service. 

35.  Did  you  not  meet  him  at  the  close  of  the  morning  Service  that  day  ? 
I  did  not. 

36.  Did  not  you   and  .  your  sister  remain  in  the  church  after  the  close  of  the 
morning  service,  and  as  Bishop  Onderdonk  was -leaving  the  chureh,  meet  him,  and 
address  him  in  a  very  friendly  manner  ? 

/  did  not.  .  . 

37.  Did  either  of  you? i  '         .  '      . 
My  sister  met  him  ;  I  cannot  tell  her  mantier  towards  him. 

38.  Did  you  not  speak  to  him  at  all  on  that  occasion  ? 
•  I  did  not. 

39.  Did  your  sister  converse  with  him  on  that  occasion  \ 
I  presutne  she  did  ;.  but  I  was  not  present.       ... 

40.  Who  first  spoke  on  the  occasion  of  thek. meeting— the  Bishop,  or  your  sister  * 
I  do  not  know.  .  . 

41.  In  what  part  of  the  church  was  this  ? 
In  the  vestibule. 

42.  Did  you  and  your  sister  come  out  together  ?   .  •     . 
•We  did  riot.  . 

43.  Had  you  and  your  sister  occupied  the  same  pew  that  morning  ?    •    . 
My  sister  presided  at  the  organ. 

44.  Were  you  in  the  organ-loft  with  her  ?  .  ;         .    •. 
I.  was. ; 

45.  Did  you  leave  the  organ-loft  together  ? 
We  did  not. 

46.  Did  you  go  down  stairs  together  ?  . 
No.      ;   .. 

47.  How  far  apart  were  you  in  going  down , stairs •? 

Some  distance;  I  cannot  exactly  tell  how  far.     I  was  in  the  organ-loft,  and  we 
were  separated- some  sixteen  or.  seventeen  steps,  and  quite  a  space. 
.    48.  Do  you  mean  that  you  remained  in  the  organ-loft  until  your  sister  had  got 
to  the  foot  of  the  stairs,  or  the  vestibule  of  the  church  '? 

I  do. 

.  49.  'Where  did  you  first  join  your  sister  on  that  occasion,  after  you  left  the 
organ-loft  ?'. 

In  the  body  of  the  church. 

50.  Did  you  remain  in  the  organ-loft  until  the  Bishop  left  your  sister? 
Nearly  all  of  the  time.        ., 

51.  Did  you  come  down  at  all  before  the  Bishop  left  yolir  sister  ? 
I  did'not. 

52.  You  say  that  on  that  occasion  your  sister  met  the  Bishop — did  she  shake 
hands  with  him  when  they  met  ? 

As  I  was  not  an  eye-witness,  I  cannot  tell.  •   . 

53.  Do  you  mean  that  you  did  not  see  the  Bishop  and  your  sister  together  at 
that  tame  ?  ' 


'     •  '   43  **JV; 

[This  question' was  objected  to  by  Coqnsel  for  the  Presentment,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  'irrelevant,  relating  to  collateral  matters.  The  point  having  been  ar- 
gued by  counsel  on  both  fcides,  the  Court  was  divided  in  opinion;  the  Bifehops.bf 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  Delaware,  and  Massachusetts  sustaining  the  objection;  the 
Bishops  of  Illinois,  Conuecticut,  Vermont,  New  Jersey,  North  Western  Missionary 
Diocese,  Louisiana,  .Western  New  York,  and  Maryland.;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of 
Virginia,  and  the  Bishops  of  Rhode  Island,  and  the  Southwestern  Missioriary  Dio- 
cese, overruling  the  objection.  The  Bishop  of  South  Carolina  declining  to  give  an 
opinion  in  the  premises.  So  by  a  majority  of  fhe  Court  it  was  overruled.] 

I  went  to. the  stairs  to  see  whether. the  Bishop  had  gone,  and  returned;  I  found 
he  had  not.  •  . 

54.  Did  you  find  the   Bishop  and.  your  sister  . talking  together  at! that  time' 
(Objected  to.) 

'He  was  talking  With  others. 

55.  Was  your  sister  there,  at 'the  foot  of  the  stairs,  or  af  the  .vestibule?     (Ob- 
jected to.)  :. 

I  cannot  exactry  say.         .   •   • 

56.  Was  she  among  the  persons  with  whom  the  Bishop  was  conversing  as  you 
have  mentioned  !     (Objected 'to.) 

She  was  present  certainly.  i 

57.  How  long  was  it  after  your  sister  left, :  before  you  went  down  from  the 
organ-loft,  and  found  the  Bishop  still*t  the  vestibule'!   .  (Objected  to.) 

•  Perhaps  five  or  ten  minute's. 

58.  Djd  you  remain  in  the  organ-loft  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  meeting  the 
Bishop  ?     (Objected  to.) 

i  did.  ••..:•  ••  .    •     . 

59.  Did  you  tell  your  sister  so  1     (Objected  to.) 
I  do  not  remember  that  J-  did.  • 

60.  Did  you  say  any  thing  to  your  sister  respecting  the  Bishop  at  that  time,  of 
respecting  your  reason  for  not  going  down  with  her  1  ;  (Objected. to.) 

I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

61.  You  say  that  your  sister  -and  yourself  rriet,  after  the  Bishop  had  left,. in  the 
body  of  the  church — did  you  say  any  thing  to .  your  .sister  respecting  the  Bishop 
when  you  so  met  ] 

It  is  very  probable  I  did. 

62.  Can  you  not  be  more  certain  whether  you  said  any  thing  or  not  respecting 
the  Bishop  1 

I  cannot  remember  exactly  what  I -said  to  her  about  the  -Bishop. 

63.  Did  you  reprove  your  sister  for  having  met  and  conversed  with  the  Bishop .1 
(Objected  'to.     Modified  thus,  after  argument  by  counsel- — ) 

64.  Did  you  reprove  your  sister  for  having  met,. and,  as  you  presumed,  conversed 
with  the  Bishop  1  (This  question  wa^  waived  for  the  present^) 

65.  You  say  that  you  presume  that  your  sister  'conversed  with  the  Bishop  in 
the  vestibule — did  you  at  the  time  presume  that  she  conversed  with  him  there  ! 

I  thought  it  vva's  probable,  from  circumstances. 

66.  Had  you  at. the  time  a)iy  doubt  of  it* 

I  had  some  doubt  of.it.  .  . 

67.  What  were  the  circumstances  which  induced  you-to  suppose  that  your  sister 
converged  with  the  Bishop  ] 

.Others  being  present,  remarks  might  .have  been  made  if  she  had  not. 

68.  Did  you  reprove  your  sister  for  having  met/and,  as  you  presumed,  conversed 
with  the  Bishop]  .(Objected  to  and  the  following  substituted — '-) 

69.  Did  you  advise  your  sister  to  remain  in  the  organ-loft, 'with  a  view  to  avoid 
the  Bishop  ? 

There  was  no  remark  made  to  my  sister  upon  the  subject. 

7d.  Yon  have  spoken,  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dowdriey— was  he  present  at 'the  time 
last  referred  to,  when  your  sister  met  Bishop  Onderdonk  at  the  vestibule  of  the 
Church?  ;  .  .'  ' 

He  was.  : 


44 

71.  Did  he  continue  there  until  you  afterwards  joined  your  sister  in  the  body  of 
the  Churcjh  as  you  stated  ?     (Objected  to — objection  not  sustained.) 

I  presume  that  he  did. 

72.  Have  you  any  doubt  that  he  did  ? 
No. 

73.  .Was  your  sister  with  you  at  the  church  on  the  morning  of  the  day  when 
Bishop  Onderdonk  laid  his  hand  upon  your  person,  as  you  have  described  ? 

She  was,  and  was  obliged  to  leave  before  the  service  was  over ;  she  was  taken 
ill  with  a  nervous  headache. 

74.  Was  any  other  member  of  your  family  with  you  at  church  that  morning  1 
My  brother  was  ;  it  was  my  married  brother,  Mr.  John  Rudderow,  not  the  brother 

now  present. 

75.  Was  it  the  person  present  yesterday,  during  the  whole  of  your  direct  ex- 
amination ? 

It  was. 

76.  Did  your  brother  leave  the  church  in  company  with  you  ? 
He  did  not. 

77.  Did  you  see  him  when  you  got  into  the  carriage  to  ride  home  1 
I  did  not. 

78.  Did  you  see  him  after  you  got  home  ;  and  if  so,  how  soon  ? 
I  do  not  think  that  I  did  see  him  until  towards  evening. 

79.  Whose  wagon  was  this  in  which  you  rode  home  1 
It  belonged  to  the  Rev.  James  C.  Richmond. 

80.  Was  it  a  covered  wagon  or  an  open  one  ? 
It  was  a  covered  wagon. 

81.  Describe  the  wagon. 

It  was  a  four-wheeled  carriage  with  two  seats,  the  top  extending  over  the  whole. 

82.  Were  the  sides  of  the  wagon  closed  ;  and  if  so,  how  far  ? 
As  far  as  the  back  seat  extended,  and  a  little  beyond. 

83.  Had  the  wagon  side-doors. 
It  had  not. 

84.  Were  the  front  and  sides  of  the  wagon  open,  excepting  the  part  extending 
to  the  back  seat,  and  a  little  beyond  1 

They  were. 

85.  How  far  beyond,  or  in  front  of  the  back  seat,  was  the  wagon  closed  1 
It  might  have  been  a  quarter  of  a  yard. 

86.  Could  you  not  plainly  see  out  of  the  side  of  the  wagon,  on  either  side,  as 
you  sat  upon  the  back  seat  1 

By  leaning  a  little  forward  I  could  do  so. 

87.  Could  not  a  person  sitting  on  the  back  seat  be  plainly  recognised  by  persons 
meeting  the  wagon  ? 

By  observing  very  minutely  they  might. 

88.  Could  not  a  person  thus  sitting  be  observed  in  merely  passing  1 
I  should  think  not. 

89.  Was  this  a  high  wagon  or  a  low  one  ? 
"It  was  a  high  carriage. 

90.  Do  you  mean  to  say,  now,  that  a  person  meeting  that  carriage  directly, 
could  not  discover  at  once  that  there  were  two  persons  sitting  on  the  back  seat  T 

No,  sir,  not  at  once. 

91.  Was  the  top  of  the  carriage  up  or  down  at  that  time  1 
It  was  up. 

92.  Was  the  back  curtain  up  or  down  1 
It  was  down. 

93.  What  kind  of  a  day  was  this  ? 
A  stormy  day. 

94.  Did  you  meet  any  persons  on  your  ride  home ! 
I  do  not  remember  seeing  any  one. 

95.  How  far  was  your  ride  1 
Nearly  a  mile. 

96.  How  long  in  point  of  time  was  your  ride  1 


45 

I  should  suppose  half  an  hour. 

97.  Were  the  roads  muddy  ! 
They  were. 

98.  Before  the  Bishop  put  his  hand  upon  your  shoulder  did  he  make  any  re- 
mark! 

If  he  did,  it  was  not  to  me. 

99.  Did  he  make  any  remark  to  any  one ! 

He  might  have  spoken  to  the  person  driving,  but  I  don't  recollect. 

100.  Was  there  any  conversation  between  you  and  the  Bishop  from  first  to  last, 
during  that  ride  ? 

1  think  there  was  not  any  thing  more  than  monosyllables  passed  between  us. 

101.  What  were  they! 

In  the  conversation  that  passed  between  Mr.  Richmond  and  Bishop  Onderdonk 
I  was  referred  to,  and  made  very  short  replies.  . 

102.  Did  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Richmond  converse  continually  during  the  ride  * 
Mr.  Richmond  talked  a  great  deal. 

103.  Did  the  Bishop  converse  at  all! 
Yes,  sir,  somewhat. 

104.  Do  you  remember  the  subject  of  their  conversation  ! 
No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

105.  Did  Mr.  Richmond  turn  round,  during  that  ride,  to  converse  ! 
Partly  so. 

106.  Did  he  turn  round  so  as  to  see  your  face  or  the  Bishop's. 
He  could  see  the  Bishop's. 

107.  Did  he  turu  round  in  this  manner  repeatedly  ! 
Only  occasionally. 

108.  How  long  after  you  left  the  church  was  it  before  the  Bishop  put  his  hand 
upon  you  * 

Perhaps  not  five  minutes, 

109.  Did  he  say  any  thing  te  you  'before  putting  his  hand  upon  you ! 
He  did  not.  „ 

110.  Did  he  first  put  his  hand  upon  your  breast,  in  the  manner  you  hare  de- 
scribed 1 

He  put  his  arm  around  my  neck. 

111.  Did  you  say  any  thing  to  him  ! 
I  did  not. 

112.  Did  you  push  his  hand  away  1 
I  did. 

1 13.  How  long  after  that-before  he  repeated  the  act ! 
Immediately. 

114.  What'did  you  do  then  * 

I  endeavored  to  move,  but  could  not. 

115.  Whither  did  you  endeavor  to  move  ! 
I  was  tempted  to  leap  from  the  carriage. 

116.  Do  you  mean  that  }-ou  moved  for  that  purpose  ! 
I  attempted  to  do  so. 

J17.  How  were  you  prevented  ? 

By  the  consequences  that  might  result. 

118.  How  long  did  the  Bishop's  hand  continue  upon  your  person  the  second  time  ! 
Until  we  reached  home. 

1 19.  Did  he  immediately,  after  he  laid  his  arm  around  your  neck  the  second  time, 
thrust  his  hand  into  your  bosom,  in  the  way  you  described  ! 

He  did. 

120.  Did  you  attempt  to  remove  his  hand  from  your  bosom  7 
I  did. 

121.  In  what  way? 

By  placing  my  hand  upon  my  breast. 

122.  Did  you  attempt  in  any  other  way  to  escape  from  the  embrace  of  the 
Bishop ! 

I  endeavored  to  remove  from  him. 


46 

123.  .Did  you  do  this  repeatedly,  or  only  .once  1 
Several  times. 

124.  Did  these  attempts  on  your  part  continue  until  your  ride  Was  terminated  1  • 
They  did. 

125.  Did  you  in  any  manner  remonstrate  with  the  Bishop  ? 
I  did  not :  we  would  have  been  heard  by  Mr.. Richmond. 

126.  Was  Mr.  Riehmond  conversing  with  the  Bishop  during  any  of  these  at- 
tempts on  your  part  to  escape  T 

I  think  he  was. 

127.  Had  you  not,  previously  to  this  time,  been  upon  terms  of  great  intimacy 
with  Mr.  Richmond  ? 

He  visited  our  house  as  our  pastor. 

128.  Had  you  not  corresponded  with  him,  in  writing  ? 
No,  sir. 

129.  You  say  that  immediately  upon  your  return  home,  you  informed  your  sister 
of  this  occurrence  ;  did  you  inform  any  other  member  of  your  family  of  it  that- 
day  1 

There  was  a  cousin  in  the  room  at  the-time — Miss  De  Groot. 

130.  Did  you  mention  it  to  any  other  member  of  your  family  that  day  1 
No,  for  various  reasons,  I  did  not. 

131.  When,  and  to  whom,  did  you  first  mention- it,  after  that  day  ? 

To  my  married,  sister,  Mrs.  Dr.  Eadie,  shortly  after.     I  cannot  remember,  but 
within  three  months  after. 

132.  When,  and  to  whom,  did  you  next  mention  it  ? 
To  my  mother,  during  the  next  fall. 

133.  Have  you  made  any  affidavit,  or  sworn  statement,  in  relation  to  this  mat- 
ter1? 

Yes. 

134.  When  did  you  make  that  affidavit  1 
Within  the  last  three  months. 

135.  Who  prepared  that  affidavit  for  you  1 
Mr.  Richmond — Mr.  James  C.  Richmond. 

136.  Had  you  ever  told  these  facts  to  Mr.  Richmond,  before  he  prepared  that 
affidavit  ? 

I  did. 

137.  When  did  you  .first  tell  Mr.  Richmond  1- 
In  1843,  in  May. 

138.  Did  you  volunteer  this  statement  to  him,  or  did  he  call  upon  you  on  the 
subject  1 

H£  asked  me  what  had  occurred  during  the  .ride,  and  I  could  not  speak  un- 
truly. 

139.  Did  you  ever  yourself,  after  the  ride,  make  a  memorandum  in  writing  of 
the  facts  ? 

Never. 

140.  How  are  you  enabled  to  say  with  certainty  the  precise  day  of  the  month, 
week,  and  year,  on  which  the  ride  took  place  V 

The  Bishop  had  been  administering  the  rite  of  confirmation  at  Astoria  during 
that  month,  and  that  impressed  it  upon  my  mind. 

141.  Where  is  Astoria'? 

Nearly  opposite  what  was  then  my  place  of  residence,  on  Long  Island. 

142.  What  sort  of-a  dress  did  you  wear,  on  the  occasion  of  that  ride  ? 
I  had  a  low-necked  dress  on.. 

143.  Had  you  any  shawl,  or  other  covering  of  the  neck,  upon  you  1 
I  had  a  shawl. 

144.  Was  the  Bishop's  arm  over  or  under  your  shawl  T 
'  It  was -over  the  shawl. 

145.  Did  he  part  the  shawl  upon  your  bosom  for  the  purpose  9f  putting  his  hand 
under  yodr  dress.] 

I  had  not  it  (the  shawl)  exactly  up  upon  my  throat ;  it  was  thrown  loosely,  over 
my  shoulders. 


47 

146.  After  the  Bishop's  hand  was  first  removed,  as  you  have  stated,  did  yon 
draw  your  shawl  around  your  neck  1  * 

I  think  that  I  did. 

147.  When  he  put  his  hand  upon  you  the  second  time,  did  he  open  or  part 
ypur  shawl  ? 

Yes,  sir. 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  Doane.      ,  ^ 

1 .  Did  vou  dine  in  company  with  the  Bishop  on  the  day  of  the  ride  1 
I  did. 

2.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  him  at  dinner  1 
Very  little. 

3.  Was  there  a  back  to  the  front  seat  of  the  carriage  in  which  you  rode  * 
I  cannot  remember. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

4.  Who  invited  you  to  ride  in  the  carriage  with  Bishop  Onderdonk  1 
Mr.  Richmond. 

5.  You  mentioned  Miss  De  Groot  as  present :  when  you  first  mentioned  the  oc- 
currence to  vour  sister,  did  Miss  De  Groot  hear  you  mention  it? 

Yes,  sir,  I  think  she  did. 

Pending  the  cross-examination  of  the  last  witness',  the  Rev.  Thomas 
House  Taylor,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Paul  Trapier,  Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare,  and 
Mrs.  Charlotte  E.  Beare,  respectively  appeared  in  Court,  and  were  seve- 
rally sworn  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  commissioner. 

The  Rev.  THOMAS  HOUSE  TAYLOR,  D.  D.,  was  called  as  a  witness  by 
Counsel  for  the  Presentment. 

Direct  examination.  . 

1.  Did  you  attend  the  Convention  at  Utica  in  1838  1 
I  did. 

2.  What  is  your  vocation,  and  where  do  you  live  *  ,„ . 

A  Presbyter  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  and 
Rector  of  Grace  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

3.  During  the  Convention  of  1838,  at  Utica,  did  you  have  a  conversation  with 
the  Right  Reverend  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  in  respect  to  certain  charges  that 
had  been  made  against  him  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bolles  1 — and  if  you  did,  please  state 
the  whole  of  that  conversation. 

In  speaking  of  events  that  transpired  s.o  long  ago,  I  must  necessarily  be  cautious 
as  to  the  precise  words  used  ;  but  the  subject-matter  of  conversation  is  very  fresh 
in  my  recollection.  I  went  to  Bishop  Onderdonk,  not  only  in  consequence  of 
charges  made  by  Mr.  Bolles,  but  others,  which  I  repeated  to  the  Bishop.  I  told 
him  that  he  was  charged  with  habitual  intemperance  ;  that  he  had  been  repeatedly 
drunk  upon  that  visitation ;  that  he  was  charged  with  taking  improper  liberties 
writh  females ;  that  Mr.  Bolles  saw  him  taking  indecent  liberties  with  a  young 
woman  in  a  public  stage  on  the  day  before ;  that  Mr.  Bolles  had  mentioned  the 
circumstance  to  Dr.  Hawks,  but,  as  he  said,  with  no  intention  that  it  should  be- 
come publicly  known,  but  rather  that  Dr.  Hawks  should  speak  to  Bishop*  Onder- 
donk on  the  subject ;  that  he  (Mr.  Bolles)  was  greatly  distressed  at  finding  it  so 
publicly  talked  of ;  that  I  had  advised  Mr.  Bolles  to  come  immediately  to  Bishop 
Onderdonk,  and  tell  him  the  whole  story  himself;  that  as  to  the  charge  of  drunk- 
enness, I  had  told  Dr.  Hawks  I  would  refer  to  him  for  the  proofs ;  and  entreated 
Bishop  Onderdonk  to  see  Dr.  Hawks  and  Mr.  Bolles  ;  and  that  I  would  send  them 
to  him.  Bishop  Onderdonk  assured  me  that  the  charges  were  not  true.  As  to 
drunkenness,  he  had  taken  nothing  but  a  little  port  wine  and  water  during  that 
visitation,  which  was  necessary  to  correct  the  effects  of  the  lime-stone  water  he 
was  compelled  to  use  ;  that  as  to  the  circumstance  complained  of  by  Mr.  Bolles, 


48 

the  female  was  a  mere  child  ;  that  he  had  lifted  her  from  her  seat  in  order  to  ena- 
ble her  to  see  some  object  that  was  engaging  the  attention  of  the  other  passen- 
gers, and  was  in  the  act  of  putting  her  down,  when  seen  by  Mr.  Bolles ;  that,  in 
short,  he  regarded  every  thing  I  had  told  him  as  idle  stories,  which  he  prayed  I 
would  not  allow  to  disturb  me.  (The  Bishop  saw  that  I  was  annoyed,  and  there- 
fore said  this.)  I  then  told  him  that  I  would  send  Dr.  Hawks  and  Mr.  Bolles 
to  him  ;  and  then  left  him. 

4.  Where  was  this  interview — in  a  church,  a  private  house,  or  where  else  ? 

In  the  vestry-room  of  the  Episcopal  Church  at  Utica,  where  the  convention  was 
held. 

5.  Who  was  present  beside  you  and  the  Bishop  ? 
No  one. 

6.  How  came  you  and  the  Bishop  in  the  vestry-room  ? 

I  requested  the  Bishop,  while  sitting  in  the  chancel,  to  allow  me  a  few  moments' 
conversation  with  him  on  matters  of  the  utmost  importance  to  himself.  He  then 
prayed  to  be  excused  for  a  few  moments  by  a  crowd  of  gentlemen  who  were  around 
him,  and  he  led  the  way  into  the  vestry-room  of  the  church.  As  I  entered  I  turned 
the  key  to  secure  us  from  intrusion,  and  then  .commenced  the  conversation. 

7.  Had  Bishop  Onderdonk  at  this  time  seen  Mr.  Bolles  1 

He  had  not,  to  my  knowledge  or  belief.     I  do  not  believe  he  had  seeji  him. 

8.  Did  he  seem  to  receive  the  intelligence,  as  to  the  charge  made  by  Mr.  Bolles, 
as  for  the  first  time  ? 

I  should  suppose  that  he  did  so  receive  it. 

9.  Do  you  know  that  he  was  called  upon  afterwards  by  Mr.  Bolles  ? 

After  leaving  Bishop  Onderdonk  I  met  Dr.  Hawks  and  Mr.  Bolles  in  the  street, 
and  told  them  to  go  immediately  to  the  Bishop,  that  he  was  ready  to  receive  them. 
They  left  me  and  entered  the  church  to  see  the  Bishop. 

10.  Did  you  see  them  with  the  Bishop  ?     (Objected  to  and  withdrawn.) 

11.  In  that  conversation  between  you  and  the  Bishop,  was  there  any  thing  said 
about  a  lady  in  the  stage,  not  a  child  \ 

In  the  reply  of  the  Bishop,  nothing ;  my  repetition  of  the  charge  of  Mr.  Bolles 
was,  that  the  Bishop  had  taken  improper  liberties  with  a  young  woman. 

Cross-  Examination. 

I.  Was  there  any  other  statement  made  by  you  of  the  charges  which  had  been 
preferred  against  the  Bishop,  excepting  in  the  manner  stated  in  your  direct  exami- 
nation ! 

When  I  made  the  charge  of  drunkenness,  the  Bishop  would  reply ;  and  when  I 
repeated  the  charges  of  Mr.  Bolles,  he  would  in  like  manner  reply,  as  stated  in  the 
direct  examination. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

12.  When  you  repeated  the  charge  of  Mr.  Bolles  that  the  Bishop  had  taken  im- 
proper liberties  with  a  female  in  the  stage  the  day  before,  do  you  mean  to  say  that 
he  replied  to  that  charge  by  the  declaration,  that-  he  had  taken  up  a  little  child  in 
the  manner  you  have  stated  1 

The  Bishop's  reply  was,  as  to  the  charge  of  Mr.  Bolles,  she  was  a  mere  child, 
(that  is,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,)  and  he  had  lifted  her  from  her  seat  in  order 
to  enable  her  to  see  something  at  which  the  passengers  were  looking. 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  De  Laacey. 

1.  When  the  Bishop  made  this  remark  about  the  child,  did  you  repeat  the  charge 
by  Mr.  Bolles  that  it  was  a  young  woman  ? 

Not  to  my  recollection. 

2.  Did  you  seek  from  the  Bishop  any  further  explanation  about  any  of  these 
charges  at  that  time,  or  did  you  refer  him  to  Mr.  Bolles  and  Dr.  Hawks,  as  the 
authors  of  the  charges,  with  whom  the  explanations  were  to  be  made? 


49 

I  did  not  seek  for  any  farther  explanation  from  the  Bishop,  but  referred  him  to 
Dr.  Hawks,  who  told  me  he  had  the  proofs  in  his  possession  as  to  the  charges  of 
intemperance,  and  to  Mr.  Bolles  as  the  author  of  the  charge  of  improper  conduct 
with  a  female,  alluding  to  the  case  hi  the  stage. 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

3.  Did  the  general  expression,  "  taking  improper  liberties  with  females,"  include 
any  more  than  Mr.  Bolles'  charge  1 

It  did. 

4.  Did  you  refer  the  Bishop  to  any  person  for  the  proofs  of  the  general  charge 
of  "  taking  improper  liberties  with  females  1" 

I  do  not  remember  that  I  did,  for  they  were  vague  rumors,  not  sufficiently  defi- 
nite to  fix  my  serious  attention. 

5.  Did  the  statement,  then,  of  Mr.  Bolles  give  importance  in  your  mind  to  these 
vague  rumors,  so  as  to  lead  you  to  include  them  in  your  expostulation  with  the 
Bishop  ? 

From  the  manner  in  which  it  was  first  communicated  to  me,  it  certainly  did 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

\ 

13.  You  stated  that  the  Bishop  discovered  that  you  was,annoyed  by  these  ru- 
mors ;  was  he  apparently  agitated,  or  otherwise  ? 

He  was  not  as  much  agitated  as  I  had  supposed  he  would  have  been ;  but  led 
me  to  suppose  that  he  regarded  all  such  accusations  as  idle  tales. 

14.  As  idle  tales,  not  worthy  of  notice  ? 

I  should  hesitate  to  say  that  he  used  that  expression.  The  tone  of  his  reply 
was,  that  there  were  so  many  such  stories  afloat,  that  it  was  useless  for  him  .to  at- 
tempt to  meet  them,  and  he  assured  me  that  they  were  entirely  without  foundation. 

Cross -Examination  resumed. 

2.  In  your  last  answer,  do  yo.u  give  your  own  conclusion,  from  the  Bishop's 
manner  as  to  the  number  of  stories  afloat,  and  the  inutility  of  an  attempt  to  meet 
them,  or  do  you  give  his  language  ? 

I  intended  my  reply  to  convey  the  idea  that  such  was  the  tenor  of  his  remarks. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  give  the  language. 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  Whittingham. 

6.  Did  you  understand  the  Bishop,   in  alluding  to  the  number  of  idle   stories 
afloat,  to  allude  to  stories  concerning  himself  only  ? 

I  did  not  understand  him  as  alluding  to  himself  only,  but  to  himself  among  other 
people. 

The  hour  having  arrived,  the  Court  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Wednesday,  December  ISth,  1844, 
half-past  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey, 
the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York, 
South  Carolina,  Maryland,  Delaware' ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ; 
the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

7 


50 

Miss  Jane  O.  Rudje row, -having  been  sworn  in  Court  on  Saturday,  the 
14th,  was  called  up  as 'a  witness  by -the  Caunsel  for  the  Presentment. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  read  to  the  Court. the  form  of  an  affi- 
davit, whicji  he  proposed  to  put  "in,  showing  that  Am>  Wilson,  a  witness 
•duly  summoned  to  appear  in  this  case,  in  behalf  o'f  the  Presentment,  had 
refused  to  appear,  and  asked  the  interference  of  the  Court  to  compel  the 
attendance  of  said  witness.  • 

The  Court  was  then  cleared. 

Ordered,  That  the  Counsel  for  the.  Presentment  be  informed  that  this 
•  Court  has  not  the  power,  under  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of- this  Church, 
to  issue  a  citation  to  compel  a  witness  to  show  cause  for  non-attendance 
under  penalty  of  any  spiritual  censure. 

The  Bishops  .of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the 
North  Western  .Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South 
Carolina,,  and  Maryland  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bish- 
ops of  Massachusetts,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  voting 
in  the  affirmative  ;  the  Bishops  of  Vermont,  Kentucky,  and  Rhode  Island, 
voting*  in  the  negative  :  the  Bishops  of  Ohio  and  Delaware  declining  to  vote. 
.  The  Bishop  of  Vermont  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  record  his  dissent. 

Ordered  by  this  Court,  That  any  members'  of  Jhis  Church,  whether  of 
the  clergy  or  laity,  having  been  dujy  cited,  according  to  the  provisions  of 
Canon  third,  of  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-four,  "  On  the  trial  of  a  Bish- 
op," to  bear  testimony  in  this  case,  and  refusing  to  comply  with  said  cita- 
tion, shall  be  reported  .by  the .  President  and  Clerk  'of  this' Court  to  the 
-ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  Diocese-  to  which  said  offending  witness  or 
witnesses  may  belong,  as  -refusing  to  comply  with  said  citation,  with  a 
request  to  the  said  ecclesiastical  authority  to  take  such  order  in  the  case 
as,  in  the  judgment  of -said  ecclesiastical  authority,  the  case  may  seem  to 
demand. 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Mary- 
land, and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and.  the  South  Western  Missionary  Dio- 
cese, voting  in  the  affirmative.  The  Bishops. of  Connecticut,  North  Caro- 
lina, New*  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Western  New 
York-,  and  South  Carolina,  voting  in  the  negative. 

• '     The  Bishop  of  South  Carolina  gave  notice  of  Jiis  intention  to  record  his 
dissent,  with  the  reasons.  : 

The  undersigned,  entertaining  the  "opinion  that  there  should  be  a  strict  construc- 
tion of -all  penal  laws,  and  not  being  able  to  discover  in  the  Canon  for  the  trial  of  a 
Bishop,  any  authority  given  to  the  Court  of  Bishops,  or  to  any  member  of  the  Court, 
to  issue  a  citation  for  the  appearance  of  a  witness,. respectfully  dissents  from  the 
decision  of  the  Court,  in  virtue  of  which  they  have  exercised  the  power  of  issuing 
a  citation  to  a  witness  in. the  case  now  before  the  Court.  . 

It  appears  to  the  undersigned,  that  under  the  Canon  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  it 
is  for  the  Presenters  to  bring  forward  "  the  witnesses, "..for  "  the  .accused  to  pro- 
duce his  testimony,"  and  for  the  Court  to  declare  respectively  whether  the  accused 
be  guilty,  or  not  guilty,  of  the  charges  in  the  Presentment. 

i  C.  E.  GADSDEN, 

Bishop  of  the  Dfocese  of  South  Carolina. 

Dec.  18,  1844. 

Ordered,  That  a  Citation,  signed  by  the.  President  of.  this  Court,  in  the 
name  thereof,  be  made  to  Miss  ANN  WILSON",  to  attend  on  this  trial. 


51 

The  Counsel  being  admitted, 

Miss  JANE  O.  RUDDEROW  was  again  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Coun- 
sel for  the  Presentment. 

:          Direct  Examination. 

1.  Where  do  you  live  ? 

At  the  foot  of  Fiftieth  street,  on  the  East  River. 

2.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  P.  E.  Church,  in  full  communion  with  that  church  1 
I  am.     I  have  been  a  communicant  nine  years. 

3.  Did  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Onderdonk  of  this  diocese  ever,  and  when,  take 
improper  liberties  with  your  person  ?     If  he  did,  please  state  what  they  were  par- 
ticularly, and  the  time  when. 

On  the  13th  of  June,  1841,  Bishop  Onderdonk  visited  St.  James's  Church,  in  this 
city.  I  left  church  before  the  close  of  the  morning  service,  in  consequence  of  a 
nervous  headache.  He  returned  with  my  sister  Helen  to  dine,  at  the  house  of  my 
brother,  at  the  foot  of  61st  street,  on  the  East  River.  I  went  down  into  the  draw- 
ing room,  at  sister  Helen's  request,  to  see  him.  He  was  standing  by  the  centre- 
table  when  I  entered.  He  advanced  to  meet  me  with  extended  hand,  and  said, 
"  My  daughter,  I  must  cure  you  of  these  nervous  headaches,"  and  led  me  to  the 
sofa.  I  sat  down  in  the  centre  of  the  sofa.  '  Bishop  Onderdonk  immediately  in- 
sulted me. 

4.  Please  say  what  he  did  ? 

He  thrust  his  hand  in  my  bosom.  I  moved  to  the  other  end  of  the  sofa. 
He  followed  me,  and  repeated  the  insult.  I  was  afraid  to  scream,  or  even 
reprove  hi/n ;  for  my  two  brothers  were  in  the  hall.  I  was  fearful  for  his 
personal  safety,  and  did  not  expose  him  for  the  sake  of  the  Church.  I  was 
relieved  by  the  entrance  of  my  sister-in-law,  Mrs.  John  Rudderow.  We 
were  summoned  to  dinner.  I  was  reserved  at  the  table,  for  I  could  scarcely 
keep  from  tears.  After,  dinner  we  went  on  to  the  piazza.  Bishop  Onderdonk 
requested  me  to  show  him  Mr.  Schermerhorn's  house ;  which  I  did  by  walking 
to  the  north  end  of  the  piazza.  He  threw  his  arm  around  my  neck ;  I 
retreated  into  the  drawing-room  ;  where  my  mother,  and  sister,  and  sister-in-law 
immediately  followed  me.  It  was  a  stormy  day  ;  and  I  went  to  the  \Vindow-shade 
to  go  underneath  it,  but  not  to  raise  it,  to  see  if  it  had  ceased  raining.  We  were 
determined  to  go  to  Sunday-school,  though  we  expected  but  few  children  to  be 
present.  Much  to  my  surprise,  Bishop  Onderdonk  was  immediately  by  my  side, 
and  repeated  the  insult  in  the  same  manner  as  I  stated  before.  I  threw  his  hand 
away  from  me,  and  retreated  from  underneath  the  shade.  I  observed  my  mother 
regarding  me*  intently.  We  repaired  to  the  Sunday-school,  and  left  my  mother 
and  sister-in-law  to  entertain  him. 

5.  Please  state  how  far  the  Bishop  put  his  hand  in  your  bosom  1 
The  first  time  not  very  low  down.     The  second,  very  low. 

6.  Did  he,  qr  not,  put  his  hand  on  your  naked  bosom  ] 
•  He  did. 

7.  WTas  the  back,  or  the  palm  of  his  hand,  next  to  your  naked  bosom  ? 
The  palm  of  his  hand.  • 

8.  Did  he,  or  not,  grasp  your  naked  bosom  ? 
The  second  time  he  did. 

(Objected  to  after  answer.) 

9.  What  use  did  he  make  of  his  hand  when  in  your  bosom  T     Please  state  par- 
ticularly.         .  . 

He  pressed  it. 

10.  Any  thing  more  ] 
No. 

11.  In  what  way  did  he  press  it  ? 

It  is  scarcely  in  my  power-  to  describe. 

12.  How  lo*g  had  you  known  Bishop  Onderdonk  before  this  occurrence  ? 
About  ten  years.' 

13.  Did  he  confirm  you? 


52 

He  did. 

14.  Did  he  confirm  your  sister  Helen  ? 

He  did,  at  the  same  time  that  I  was  confirmed. 

15.  When  and  where  ? 

In  the  year  1835,  in  St.  Paul's  Chapel 

Cross-  Examination . 

1 .  What  is  your  age  1 
Twenty-nine. 

2.  Have  you  been  in  attendance  in  this  building  during  every  day  of  this  trial  ? 
I  have. 

3.  Did  you  come  here,  and  return  home  in  company  with  your  sister  Helen  on 
those  occasions  ? 

Certainly. 

4.  Have  you  conversed  with  her  respecting  the  testimony  she  gave  on  this  trial  * 
I  have. 

5.  Has  she  stated  to  you  the  testimony  which  she  gave  ! 
Jn  part. 

6.  Do  you  mean  all  the  material  parts  of  it  ? 
I 'do. 

7.  What  was  the  first  occasion  of  your  seeing  the  Bishop,  after  13th  June,  1841 * 
To  speak  with  him,  at  his  study,  in  November  or  December,  1842. 

8.  When  you  saw  the  Bishop  at  his  study  in  November  or  December,  1842,  did 
you  call  upon  him,  and  with  whom? 

I  called  upon  him  with  Miss  Riker. 

9.  What  dM  you  state  to  the  Bishop  was  the  object  of  your  call  ? 

To  get  his  consent  to  the  Benevolent  Society  of  St.  James's  Church,  meeting 
in  the  church  to  sew.  Mr.  Dowdney,  the  Rector  of  the  Church,  had  objections, 
and  said,  if  we  had  the  Bishop's  consent,  we  might  meet  there. 

10.  Were  you  accompanied  on  that  occasion  by  any  male  protector  ? 
No. 

11.  Did  Miss  Riker  accompany  you  upon  your  invitation1? 
No,  I  accompanied  Miss  Riker  upon  her  invitation. 

12.  When  Miss  Riker  invited  you  to  accompany  her  to  the  Bishop's,  did  you 
state  to  her  the  outrages  which  you  have  described  in  your  testimony  1 

They  had  been  Stated  previously  to  her. 

13.  Why  then  did  you  consent  to  accompany  her  1 

She  would  not  go  alone  ;  and  our  Society  would  have  had  to  be  Abandoned. 

14.  Had  that  Society  no  other  members  than  you  and  Miss  Riker  1 
It  had. 

15.  When  you  entered  the  Bishop's  house  did  you  find  him  in  his  study  ? 
No. 

16.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  before  he  came  1 
A  few  minutes. 

17.  Did  he  come  from  another  part  of  the  house  or  from  the  street  T 
I  presume  he  came  from  another  part  of  the  house. 

18.  Did  you  and  Miss  Riker  rise  and  shake  hands  with  him  as  he  entered  ? 
He  advanced  and  extended  his  hand  to  us,  and  we  did  shake  hands  with  him. 

19.  How  long  did  you  remain  in  the  Bishop's  study  upon  that  occasion  ? 
I  should  think  about  twenty  minutes  or  half  an  hour. 

20.  Did  you  converse  with  the  Bishop  upon  any  other  subject  than  the  matter 
of  the  Society  1 

I  can  only  recollect  that  we  conversed  about  our  families,  and  about  the  Society 

21.  Did  you  converse  freely  with  the  Bishop  upon  those  subjects  ? 
Upon  the  Society  we  did.     Not  very  freely  upon  the  other. 

22.  Did  you  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop  upon  leaving  his  study  ? 
I  did  not. 

23.  Did  the  Bishop  extend  his  hand  to  you  on  leaving  1 
I  did  not  turn  around  to  see. 


53 

24.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  took  your  departure  abruptly  1 
I  do. 

25.  When  and  where  did  you  next  meet  the  Bishop  ? 
r  In  St.  James's  Church,  in  June,  1843.- 

26.  In  what  part  of  the  church  ? 

In  a  pew  where  I  was  teaching  my  class,  near  the  Vestry-room. 

27.  Before  or  after  service ! 
Before  service. 

28.  Did  you  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ? 
When  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dowdney  introduced  me. 

29.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  did  not  recognise  the  Bishop  until  introduced 
by  Mr.  Dowdney  ? 

I  do  not. 

30.  Did  not  Mr.  Dowdney  know  that  you  were  acquainted  with  the  Bishop  ? 
He  did. 

31.  "Why  then  did  he  introduce  you  ? 

Circumstances  led  Mr.  Dowdney  to  suppose  that  the  Bishop  had  insulted  us,  or  me. 

32.  Had  you  told  him  the  circumstances  ?  t 
No,  sir. 

33.  Did'  he  ask  your  permission  to  introduce  the  Bishop  ? 

Xo.  but  he  requested  that  we  would  use  the  Bishop  well  when  he  came  to  the 
church. 

34.  Did  you  know  before  you  went  to  church  that  morning  that  the  Bishop  was 
expected  to  officiate  '\ 

We  did. 

35.  Did  your  sister  know  it  ? 
Yes. 

36.  After  the  morning  service  was  over,  and  before  you  left  the  church,  did 
you  again  meet  the  Bishop  '\ 

Yes,  we  usually  stayed  in  church  ;  we  did  not  go  home. 

37.  Did  vou  go  home  that  morning  1 
No. 

38.  Where  did  you  meet  the  Bishop  ? 

I  was  standing  on  the  stairs  of  the  gallery  when  the  Bishop  was  about  to  paas 
out,  and  I  met  him  there. 

39.  Did  you  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ? 
Not  that  I  recollect.  « 

40.  Did  he  extend  his  hand  to  you  1 
I  do  not  remember. 

41.  Did  you  talk  to  the  Bishop  at  all  at  that  time  1 

I  answered  the  Bishop's  compliments  about  the  music. 

42.  Did  you  not  in  return  compliment  him  for  the  sermon  1 
Never. 

43.  What  did  you  say  to  the  Bishop  ?-     What  conversation  passed  1 

Ti»e  Bishop  complimented  me  on  playing  the  organ.  I  told  him  that  he  would 
possibly  say  so  to  me,  of  course.  No,  said  he,  I  have  said  it  to  Mr.  Dowdney  hi 
the  A'estry-room.  He  said  he  had  not  heard  as  fine  music  in  some  time.  He 
asked  me  who  it  was  that  played  while  the  congregation  were  going  out  of  church. 
I  told  him  that  Mr.  Oakey  played  the  people  out.  He  said  it  was  not  a  very 
charitable  thing,  or  something  to  that  effect,  to  play  the  people  out  of  church. 
That  is  all  I  can  recollect. 

44.  Did  you  not  come  down  stairs  for  the  express  purpose  of  meeting  the  Bishop, 
and  greet  him  cordially  when  you  met  him "? 

I  did  not  either;  the  greeting  was  all  as  I  have  stated. 

45.  Were  you  in  the  vestibule  of  the  church  with  the  Bishop  at  that  time  1 
I  was  on  the  stairs  that  led  to  it. 

46.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  ? 

A  sufficient  time  for  a  carriage  to  come  for  the  Bishop.  I  cannot  be  certain  that 
one  did  come  for  him ;  the  time  was  about  long  enough  for  one  to  come  from  the 
neighborhood  for  him  ;  about  five  or  eisrht  minutes. 


54 

47.  Did  this  conversation  between  you  and   the  Bishop  continue  during  that 
time  ? 

No ;  he  talked  to  Miss  Riker  and  Mr.  Alvord,  one  of  the  vestrymen. 

48.  Did  you  remain  on  the  stairs  until  the  Bishop  left  ? 

I  did.     I  could  not  pass  into  the  Church.     The  Bishop  stood  in  the  door. 

49.  Where  was  your  sister  then  ? 
She  was  up  stairs. 

50.  Was  she  up  there  during  the  whole  of  that  time  1 
She  was. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  the  Court  adjourned. 
Attest, 

WILLIAM  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


Thursday,  December  IQth,  1844,  > 
half-past  9  o'clock,  A.  M.        $ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  IJli- 
nois,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North-Western  Missionary 
Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and 
Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode  Island,  and  the  Soulh-Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  .and 
prayers. 

The  President  read  a  letter  from  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  accounting 
for  his  absence  by  reason  of  sickness  in  his  family. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Respondent  submitted  to  the  Court  a  motion,  that  the 
Court  direct  the  Presenting  Bishops  to  grant  the  Respondent  and  his  Coun- 
sel access  to  the  depositions  of  the  witnesses  examined,  and  to  be  examined, 
on  which  the  Presentment  is  founded. 

The  motion  was  objected  to  by  Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  and  argued 
by  the  Counsel  on  both  sides. 

The  Court  w!is  then  cleared. 

Opinions  were  taken  in  order,'  and  upon  calling  for  the  decision  of  the 
Court,  it  appeared  that  the  motion  was  not  granted. 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  Western  New  York,  and 
Maryland,  voting  for  granting  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Vermont,  Ken- 
tucky, Ohio,  the  North-Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  South 
Carolina,  and  Delaware,  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia,  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South- Western  Missionary  Didbese, 
voting  against  granting. 

Upon  the  declaration  of  the  decision,  the.  Bishop  of  Georgia,  in  behalf 
of  the  Presenting  Bishops,  then  rose  and  declared  the  willingness  of  the 
Presenting  Bishops  to  grant  the  Respondent ,  and  his  Counsel  access  to  the 
depositions  of  the  witnesses  examined,'  and  to  be  examined,  on  which  the 
Presentment  is  founded,  and  liberty  to  have  copies  of  the  same. 

The  cross-examination  of  Miss  Jane  O.  Ruddenny  then  proceeded. 

51.  When  your  sister  returned  from  Church  on  the  13th  of  June,  1841,  did  you 
see  her  before  you  had  met  the  Bishop  in  the  house  ? 

I  did. 

52.  Where? 

In  our  bedroom,  where  I  was  sitting. 


53.  Did  she  tell  you,  or  give  you. any  account  of  an  insult,  alleged  to  have.been 
offered  to  her  by  the  Bishop  1 

She  did.     .  .      • 

54.  Upon  her  requesting  you  to  go  down  and  see  the  Bishop,  did  you  lefuse  to 
do  so  f 

Yes  ;  I  told  her  I  was  afraid. 

55.  Were  any  of  your  brothers  in  the  house  at  that  time  ? 
Both  were.          ,    '  . 

56.  In  what  part  of  the  house  T 
In  the  hall. 

57.  When  you  .met  the  Bishop,  was  he   in  a  drawing-room  opening  from  the 
hall  ? 

He  was.  '. 

58.  Was  he  alone  in.  the  room  1 
He  wag: 

59.  What  were  your  brothers  doing  in  the  hall  1 
I  cannot  answer. 

60.  Did  they  remain  in  the  hall  while  you  and  the  Bishop  were  together  in  the 
room  1 

They  did.  :.     . 

61.  'Was  the  door  leading  from  the  hall  into  the  room  open  or  shut? 
It  was  wide  open.  .      . 

62.  In  what  part  of  the  room  was  the  sofa  I 

Between  the  door  which  led  into  the  hall  and  the  front  window. 

63.  Did  it  extend  nearly  to  the  casing  of  the  door  ? 
It  did  quite, 

64.  Was  the  table,  at  which  the  Bishop  was.  standing  when  you  entered  the 
room,  in  the  centre  of  the  room,  fronting  the.  door  ?    . 

It  -was.  . 

65.  What  was  the'  Bishop  doing  when  you  entered  the  room  ? 

He  was  standing  by  the  centre-table,  with  a  book  in  his  hand,  I  think. 

66.  Had  he  his  fece  or  his  back  towards  you,  as  you  entered  the  room  1 
He  had  his  face  towards  me. 

67.  Can  you  inform  me  what  wits  the  distance  between  the  table  and  th'e  ,door 
at  which  you  entered  \  .  , 

About  eight  or  ten  feet. 

68.  Who  spoke  first,  you  or  the* Bishop  1  .  V.  •»• 
The  Bishop. 

69.  When  he  led  you  to  the  sift,  did  you  pass  near  the  door  *          . 
Idid.  '    ,.I         '  : 

70.  How  did  he  lead  you  to  the;  sofa  1  ; 
By  one  of  my  hands. 

71.  Did  you  feel  ho  alarm  at  that  act,  after  what  your  sister  had  just  told  you  1 
I  did  not,  for  I  was  in  my  own  house. 

72.  What  kind  of  a  dress  had  you  on  1 
I  had  a  high-neck  dress  qn. 

73.  Did  it  cover  your  shoulders^  as  the  dress  yen  now  have  on  does  ] 
It  could  not'  be  considered,  a  high-neck  dress  unless  it  did. 

74.  Did  it  come  pretty  close  arpund  your  throat  f 

Not  close  around  nay  throat,  but  as  high  as  ladies'  dresses  usually  are. 

75.  HOW  was  it  fastened  around  your  waist  and  chest  * 
The  dress  wa's  hooked  behind,  as  ladies'  dresses  usually  are. 

76.  '.Was  the  dress  open  upo"n  your  chest  ? 

Yes,  a  little;  way  down,  about  the  top  of  the  chest-bone.  .      . 

77.  Wjis-  it  a  close  or  loose  dress  around1  your  waist  and  chest  T 
It  was  a  close  dress,  hdoked  behind. 

78.  When  you  took  your  seat  on  the  centre  of  the  sofa,  as  you  have  described, 
and  the  Bishop  thrust  his  hand,  into  your  bosom,  was  he  standing  or  sitting  * 

He  was  sitting.  • . 

79.  On  which  side  of  you  was  he  sitting  ? 


56 

On  my  right,  between  me  and  the  door. 

80.  Did  the  door  continue  wide  open  during  the  aggressions  of  the  Bishop, 
which  you  have  described  ? 

It  did. 

81.  When  the  Bishop  first  put  his  hand  in  your  bosom  on  the  sofa;  did  you  re- 
monstrate with  him  in  any  way  ? 

I  did  not ;  I  was  afraid  my  brothers  would  hear  me. 

82.  Did  the  Bishop  accompany  the  first  act  with  any  remark  ? 
He  did  not  speak  during  the  act. 

83.  Did  he  say  any  thing  before  the  act,  except  what  you  have  stated  in  your 
direct  examination ! 

Not  that  I  recollect. 

84.  Did  the  Bishop,  during  any  portion  of  these  transactions,  unhook  your  dress  ? 
He  did  not. 

85.  When  you  moved  to  the  end  of  the  sofa,  after  the  first  act,  was  it  imme- 
diately repeated  by  the  Bishop,  without  any  remark  on  his  part  ? 

It  was. 

86.  How  did  you  disengage  yourself  at  that  time  from  him  T 

My  sister-in-law  came  into  the  room  almost  directly  after,  and  the  Bishop  start- 
ed and  moved  to  the  other  end  of  the  sofa. 

87.  Did  you  see  your  sister-in-law  until  after  she  had  entered  the  room  ? 
I  did  not  see  her,  but  heard  her  coming. 

88.  Had  the  Bishop  moved  away  from  you  when  you  first  saw  your  sister-in-law 
in  the  room  1 

He  moved  away  as  soon  as  he  heard  her  coming. 

89.  You  say  that  the  reason  why  you  did  not  scream,  nor  reprove  the  Bishop, 
was  that  your  two  brothers  were  in  the  hall ;  how  did  you  know  that  they  were  in 
the  hall? 

I  saw  them  there  when  I  came  down  stairs ;  and  when  I  first  came  into  the 
room  I  heard  them. 

90.  Do  you  feel  confident  that  they  were  in  the  hall  during  the  whole  time  ? 
I  do  not :  it  is  not  possible  for  me  to  answer. 

91.  How  many  inmates  were  there  in  the  house  at  the  time  ? 

My  mother,  brother  and  wife,  my  other  brother  and  sister,  my  aunt,  a  female 
cousin  who  was  staying  with  us,  my  brother's  four  children,  and  three  servants. 

92.  Where,  relatively  to  the  drawing-room,  was  the  dining-room  1 

It  was  opposite^;  but  the  doors  were  not  opposite  ;  the  dining-room  door  was 
about  a  yard  nearer  the  front  of  the  house. 

93.  Were  the  preparations  going  on  for  dinner  while  you  and  the  Bishop  were 
in  the  room  ? 

They  were. 

94.  Describe  the  preparations  going  on. 

I  could  scarcely  do  that ;  the  entrance  from  the  kitchen  to  the  dining-room  was 
on  the  other  side,  and  not  by  the  hall. 

95.  Was  the  dining-room  door  open  as  you  passed  into  the  drawing-room ! 
I  did  not  notice. 

96.  Were  you  summoned  to  dinner  immediately  after  the  entrance  of  your  sister- 
in-law  into  the  drawing-room  1 

In  about  a  quarter  of  an  hour. 

97.  Did  you  remain. in  the  room  during  the  whole  of  that  time  ? 
I  do  not  recollect — I  presume  I  did. 

98.  Did  your  sister-in-law  remain  1 

She  did  ;  my  mother  likewise,  and  my  sister  Helen. 

99.  When  did  your  mother  and  sister  enter  the  room  ? 

Almost  immediately  after  my  sister-in-law  did  ;  my  mother  entered  first. 

100.  Was  there  a  general  conversation  in  the  room,  before  dinner  1 
I  do  not  recollect. 

101.  Did  your  nervous  headache  continue  until  dinner-time  ? 

I  think  it  did.     My  nervous  headache,  if  I  had  any  at  that  time,  was  so  ab- 
sorbed in  the  fright  and  astonishment,  that  I  cannot  recollect. 


'•'*•*• 

57 

100.  Who  composed  the  party  at  dinner  that  day  T 

My  mother,  my  sister-in-law,  my  sister  Helen,  and  I  do  not  recollect  whether 
my  cousin  was  present  or  not ;  my  brothers  were  not  there  ;  the  Bishop  and  my- 
self were  also  present. 

103.  Do  vou  remember  how  long  the  dinner  lasted  T 
I  do  not — it  was  about  half  an  hour  or  three  quarters. 

104.  Was  there  a  general  conversation  kept  up  at  the  dinner-table,  in  which  you 
and  your  sister  participated  ! 

Mv  sister  and  myself  did  not  take  much  part  in  the  conversation  ;  it  was  mostly 
carried  on  by  my  mother  and  the  Bishop. 

105.  You  said  in  your  direct  examination, ';  After  dinner  we  went  on  the  piazza'' 
w  ho  went  ? 

My  sister  Helen,  and,  I  think,  my  mother,  and  my  sister-in-law,  the  Bishop  and 
myself.  . 

'106.  Who  took  the  Bishop's  arml 
•I  do  not  know  that  any  one  did. 

107.  Did  you  all  go  out  to  the  piazza  immediately  from  the  dinner-table  ? 
We  did. 

108.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  the  Bishop  on  the  piazza,  excepting  what 
you  have  stated. 

I  do  not  recollect. 

109.  When  you  walked  to  the  north  end  of  the  piazza  with  the  Bishop,  were  any 
of  the  other  persons  you  have  mentioned  on  the  piazza  ? 

They  were  all  there. 

110.  Did  they  all  continue  upon  the  piazza  until  you  retreated  into  the  drawing- 
room  T 

I  think  they  did. 

111.  Was  this  piazza  entirely  open  from  one  end  to  the  other  * 
It  was. 

112.  Was  there  any  lattice- work  on  either  side1? 

On  the  south  side  there  was,  but  the  north  side  was  open. 

113.  When  the  Bishop  threw  his  arm  around  your  neck  at  that  time,  as  you  have 
stated,  was  there  any  thing  said  by  you  or  by  him  ? 

I  do  not  recollect. 

114.  Which  way  were  you  looking  when  the  Bishop  threw  his  arm  around  your 
neck  ! 

I  was  looking  towards  the  north. 

115.  Which  way  did  the  Bishop  look  then? 
I  do  not  know. 

1 16.  Do  you  mean  that  he  had  his  arm  around  your  neck  before  you  knew  which 
way  he  was  looking  ? 

I  did  not  look  at  the  Bishop  at  all ;  I  only  knew  he  was  along-side  of  me. 

1 17.  Was  his  back  or  his  face  towards  you  ? 

I  presume  his  face  was  towards  me  ;  I  did  not  look  at  him.  As  I  said  before,  I 
cannot  tell  which  way  he  was  looking. 

118.  Did  you  and  he  walk  together  to  the  end  of  the  piazza  * 

We  did  certainly,  as  he  asked  me  to  show  him  Mr.  Schermerhorn's  house. 

119.  Did  he  put  his  arm  around  your  neck  immediately  upon  reaching  the  end  of 
the  piazza  T 

I  think  he  did. 

120.  When  you  say  you  retreated  into  the  drawing-room,  do  you  mean  that  yon 
abruptlydisengaged  yourself  from  the  Bishop,  and  left  the  piazza  1 

I  do. 

121.  Was  this  observed  by  any  of  the  other  persons  upon  the  piazza  * 
I  do  not  know  ;  for  they  were  plucking  roses  at  the  other  end. 

122.  Did  the  Bishop  follow  you  into  the  drawing-room,  before  you  went  to  the 
window-shade  ? 

He  did. 

123.  Did  he  approach  you  before  you  went  to  the  window-shade  ! 

We  were  all  seated  in  the  drawing-room,  before  I  rose  to  go  to  the  window-shade. 

8 


58 

124.  Was  your  object  in  going  to  the  window-shade  to  avoid  the  Bishop  1 

It  was  to  see  if  it  rained,,  that  tt-e  might  go  to  the  Sunday-school,  to  avoid  the 
Bishop's  society  at  home. 

125.  When  he'  repeated  the  insult  as  you  state,  were  you  standing  inside  of  the 
•window-shade  or  outside  1 

I  was  standing  between  the  window-shade  and. the  window. 
126;  What  part  of  your  person  •  was  povered  by  the  \vindow-shade  T 
I  was  covered  by  the  window-shade  about  to  the  middle  of  my  person.  .  The 
window-shades  were  very  long.   . ' 

127.  Did  the  Bishop  -raise  the  window'shade  and  go  under  it  ? 
He  did.   . 

128.  How  wide  was  the  shade ! 

About  four  feet  wide,  hanging  outside  of  the  casing. 

129.  Of  what  material  wae  this  window-shade  1 

It  was  a  painted  window-shade-;  dark  lemon  color. 

130.  Were  the  other  persons  whom  you  have  mentioned  as  having  been  on  the 
piazza,  in  the  room  at  this  time  *: 

They  were.  .  "  . 

131.  Did  this  window-shade,' when  yon  and -the  Bishop  were  under  it,  conceal 
your  persons  from. the  observation  of  those  in  the  room  ? 

It  did. 

132.  Did  you  immediately  retreat  from  the  window-shade  when  you  threw  his 
arm  from" you?  . 

Certainly. 

133.  Did  the  Bishop  leave  at  the  same  time  1 
I  do  not  remember.  ' 

134.  When  you  saw  the  Bishop  coming  under  the  window-shade  did  you  attempt 
to  retreat  1 

The.  Bishop  insulted  me  as  soon  a$  I  knew  he  was  there. 

'  135..  Did  he  raise  up  the  window-shade,  or  turn  it  aside  for  the  .purpose  of 
going  under  ? ' 

As  I  was  standing  under  the  shade  it  of  course  raised  the  shade  from  the  casing. 
He  raised  it  a  little  to  come  under.  He  must  have  done  so,  I  think. 

136.  Did  he  raise  k  above  his  own  head  and  pass  under  it,  or  did  he  turn  it 
aside  ?  •  .  ' 

I  did  not  observe. 

137.  How  long  an  interval  was  there  between  your  being  .on  the  piazza  and 
going 'under  the  window-shade  ! 

I  do  not  recollect  exactly;.  I  should  think 'some  5  or  10  or. 15  minutes. 

138.  Did  the  Bi.shop  sit  down  in  .the  .room  after  he  came  from  the  piazza,  and 
if  so,,  how  long  1 

He  sat  down. until  I  went  to  the  window,  and  followed  me  immediately  to  the 
window. 

139.  Was  he  conversing  with  you  while  you  were  sitting  down  ? 
I  think  he  was  not  conversing  with  fne. 

140.  Wjth  whom  was  he  conversing  1 

I  do  not  recollect ;  with  my  mpther,  most  probably. 

1.41.  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood -that  the  Bishop  abruptly  left  the  person 
with  whom  he  was  conversing,  and  followed  you  to  the  window-shade  ?• 

He  must  have  done  so,  of  course. 

142..  Did  .you  know  that  the  Bishop  was  to  officiate  anywhere  that  afternoon, 
and  if  so,  where  1  . 

At  St.  Michael's.  Church,  Bloomingdale. 

143.  Did  you  know  at  what  time  he  was  to  leave  your  brother's  house  for  that 
purpose  1 

J  do  not  know  exactly  ;"  he  wa^.  to  leave  after  2  o'clpck — bekween  2  and  3. 

144.  What  was  your  dinner-hour  that  day  ? 

One  .o'clock.     We  always  dine  at  one  on  Sundays. 
.  145.  At  what  time  did  you  go  Jo  the  Sunday-school  that  afternoon  1 
We  started  from  home  about  £  o'clock. 


59 

146.  How  long  was  that  affer  the  occurrence  at  the  window-shade  ? 
We  left  as  soon  as  we  could  put  on  our  bonnets. 

147.  Had  the  Bishop  left  before  you  did  ? 
He  had  not. 

148.  Did  you  tell  this  story  to  your  sister  on  the  way  to  the  Sunday-school! 
I  did. 

149.  Did  -you  tell  it  to  any  other  person  that  day  1 
I  did  not. 

150.  When  and  to  whom  did  you  first  tell  it  after  that  day? 

To  my  sister,  Mrs.  Brown,  a  few  weeks  after.  I  cannot  be  more  precise  than  that. 

151.  Did  you  ever  tell  it  to  your  mother,  and  when? 
I  did,  the  following  fall. 

152.  Did  you  tell  it  to  your  brothers  at  any  time,  and  when  1 

At  the  time  we  sent  our  affidavits  to  Philadelphia,  in  October  last. 

153.  Did  you  tell  it  to  them  before  you  made  the  affidavits,  or  after  ? 
Before. 

154.  Who  prepared  your  affidavit  ? 
The  Rev.  James  C.  Richmond. 

155.  Did  he  request  you  to  make  an  affidavit  of  the  facts  1 
He  did. 

156.  When  did  you   first   communicate  to  Mr.  Richmond  th£  facts  you  have 
stated  ? 

It  was  in  May  or  June,  1843,  when  he  asked  us  the  question.  He  asked  sister 
Helen  first,  and  then  I  communicated  my  statement  to  him. 

157.  Have  you  accompanied  Mr.  Richmond  to  any  other  person,  to  obtain  an 
affidavit  against  the  Bishop  \ 

I  did. 

158.  When  Mr.  Richmond  asked  you  to  make  the  affidavit,  for  what  purpose, 
and  for  whom,  did  he  represent  it  as  being  intended  1 

The  purpose  was,  for  the  sake  of  truth,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Church. 

159.  To  whom  did  he  say  the  affidavit  was  to  be  sent,  and  what  use  did  he  say 
was  to  be  made  of  it  ? 

We  understood  it  was  to  be  sent  to  the  House  of  Bishops. 

160.  Did  Mr.  Richmond  tell  you  so  ? 

He  did  not  directly,  sir ;  he  simply  stated  that  this  thing  was  going  on — that 
affidavits  were  being  sent  in  to  the  House  of  Bishops  ;  and  of  course  we  under- 
stood, by  that,  that  ours  would  be  sent  likewise. 

161.  Did  you  know  at  that  time  that  Mr.  Richmond  had  expressed  a  hostile 
feeling  towards  the  Bishop  1     (Objected  to,  and  waived  for  the  present.) 

162.  When  you  accompanied  Mr.  Richmond  to  the  other  person  referred  to,  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  an  affidavit  against  the  Bishop,  did  he  go  at  your  request,  or 
you  at  his  1 

I  proposed  going  with  him. 

163.  Did  you  know  at  that  time  that  Mr.  Richmond  was  desirous  of  getting  affi- 
davits against  the  Bishop  ] 

It  was  painful  for  Mr.  Richmond  to  collect  any  affidavits,  but  he  had  been  told 
where  they  could  be  obtained. 

164.  How  do  you  know  that  it  was  painful  to  Mr.  Richmond  ? 
He  expressed  himself  so. 

165.  What  was  the  state  of  the  weather  when  you  were  out  on  the  piazza  1 

I  have  stated  before  that  it  was  a  stormy  day  ;  but  it  had  ceased  raining  then. 
U5G.  At  what  time  in  the  fall  of  the.  year  in  which  the  occurrences  you  have  tes- 
tified to  took  place,  did  you  tell  the  story-to  your  mother  ? 

It  \vas  ono  of  the  three  months  of  autumn — I  cannot  recollect  which. 

167.  Was  that,  before  or  after  Mr.  Richmond  went  to  Europe? 
I  think  it  was  after  he  sailed.     I  do  not  recollect. 

168.  Do  you  remember  when  Mr.  Richmond  went  abroad  ? 

I  do-not.  I  believe,  however,  it  was  the  autumn  of  1841.  I  think  it  was — I 
will  not  be  certain. 

169.  Do  you  know  when  he  returned  ? 


60 

He  arrived  in  Boston  ou  Easter-day,  1842.     I  did.not  see  him  until  just  before 
my  mother's  death,  which  occurred  on  the  2d  of  July,  1843. 

170.  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Richmond  returned  sooner  than  he  expected  1    (Ob- 
jected to,  and  waived  for  the  present.) 

171.  Were  you  present  when  your  affidavit  was  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Richmond  ? 
I  was. 

172.  After  your  return  from  your  visit  to  the  Bishop  at  his  study,  in  1842,  did 
you  express  yourself  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dowdney  gratified,  or  otherwise,  with  your 
visit  ? 

I  do  not  think  I  said  any  thing  to  him  about  it 

173.  Did  you  ever  say  any  thing  to  Mr.  Dowdney  in  relation  to  that  visit  1 
I  do  not  remember. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

16.  You  have  stated  your  object  in  visiting  the  Bishop  at  his  study  to  be  to  ob- 
tain h:5  consent  to  use  the  church  for  the  accommodation  of  a  Sewing  Society — 
who  got  up  and  mainly  sustained  that  society  ? 

My  sister  Helen,  Miss  Riker,  and  myself. 

17.  What  accommodations  had  you  for  the  society  1 
None  but  the  church. 

18.  What  was  Mr.  Dowdney's  objection  to  your  using  the  church  for  that  pur- 
poseT 

He  did  not  think  it  a  proper  place  for  sewing. 

19.  For  whose  benefit  did  that  society  sew  ? 
For  the  perfectly  destitute  in  the  neighborhood. 

20.  You  have  stated  that  you  left  the  Bishop  abruptly,  when  you  visited  him  at 
his  study — why  did  you  leave  him  abruptly  '\      [Objected  to  by  Counsel  for  Pre- 
sentment, upon  hearing  the  answer  of  the  witness,  upon  the  ground  that  said  an- 
swer went  to  opinion,  and  not  fact,  and  to  scandalize  his  client.     The  question  was 
withdrawn,  and  the  following  substituted.] 

21.  Did  the  Bishop  do  any  thing,  and  what,  at  the  time  you  left  his   study,  to 
cause  you  to  leave  abruptly,  as  you  have  stated  1 

He  put  his  arm  around  my  neck,  and  his  two  fingers  inside  of  my  shawl. 

22.  Was  Miss  Riker  then  present  ? 

Miss  Riker  was  then  going  out  of  the  study  door.     I  was  on  my  way  out. 

23.  At  the  dinner  table,  when  you  dined  with  the  Bishop,  did  your  manner  to- 
wards him  occasion  any  and  what  remark,  on  the  part  of  your  mother  ? 

[This  question  was  objected  to  by  Counsel  for  Respondent,  and  the  objection 
was  sustained  by  the  Court.] 

24.  At  the  dinner  table  what  was  your  manner  towards  the  Bishop  ? 
It  was  restrained,  for  I  could  scarcely  keep  from  bursting  into  tears. 

25.  When  the  Bishop  visited  the  Church  in   1843,  as  testified  to,  did  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Dowdney  intimate  a  request  that  the  Bishop  should  be  invited  to  your  house 
to  dinner! 

(Objected  to  by  Counsel  for  Respondent,  and  waived.) 
• 

Cross- Examination  resumed. 

174.  You  say  that  when  the  Bishop  put  his  arm  around  your  neck,  as  you  were 
leaving  his  study,  that  Miss  Riker  was  going  out  of  the  study  door,  and  you  were 
on  the  way  out :  was  Miss  Riker  in  such  a  position  as  that  she  could  have  seen 
the  act  you  have  described  ? 

Her  back  was  towards  us. 

175.  Have  you  ever  sworn  to  this  fact  in  any  affidavit  1 

Mr.  Graham  may  find  it  in  my  affidavit ;  I  have  not  seen  the  affidavit,  nor  a 
copy,  nor  any  thing  of  the  kind,  since  it  was  given. 

176.  Did  you  mean  in  that  affidavit  that  Miss  Riker  was  compelled  to  quit  in  haste  ? 
I  cannot  answer  for  Miss  Riker ;  Miss  Riker  must  answer  for  herself. 

.  177.  If  you  cannot  answer  for  Miss  Riker,  how  did  you  come  to  swear  in  your 
affidavit  that  we  were  compelled  to  escape  from  the  door  in  utmost  haste  ? 


61 

I  did  not  say  that  I  would  not  swear  to  it  now. 

178.  Whom  did  you  mean  by  the  word  we  in  your  affidavit  ? 
Miss  Riker  and  myself. 

179.  Did  you  tell  this  to  Miss  Riker  immediately  after  it  occurred  ? 
I  did. 

180.  Where  is  Miss  Riker  now? 

1  do  not  know.  I  presume  she  is  at  home ;  I  have  not  seen  her  within  two 
weeks.  • 

181.  Did  you  tell  it  to  Miss  Riker  until  after  you  left  the  house  T 
I  told  her  just  after  we  left  the  steps. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

26.  You  stated  that  Bishop  Onderdonk  addressed  you  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs 
in  St.  James's  Church,  in  1843,  and  complimented  you  for  your  performance  on 
the  organ  :  are  you  a  professional  performer  on  the  organ  ? 

No. 

27.  Was  you  employed  by  the  Church  to  play  on  the  organ  ? 
(Objected  to  and  waived.) 

28.  You  have  stated  that  you  proposed  to  go  with  Mr.  Richmono  to  get  an  affi- 
davit :  whose  affidavit  was  that  1 

Mrs.  Gabriel  L.  Lewis.  « 

29.  Why  did  you  propose  to  go  with  him  ? 

[This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  on  the  ground 
of  its  entering  into  the  secret  motives  of  the  witness,  not  declared  by  acts.  The 
objection  was  overruled  by  the  Court:  the  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New  Jer- 
sey, Western  New  York,  and  Maryland,  voting  to  sustain  it ;  the  Bishops  of  Il- 
linois, Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana, 
South  Carolina,  and  Delaware,  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia,  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
voting  to  overrule  it.] 

To  ascertain  the  lady's  views  in  person. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

,   1.  Please  describe  how  you  sat  respectively  at  the  dinner-table  when  the  Bishop 
dined  at  your  house  ! 

My  mother  sat  at  the  head  of  the  table,  my  sister-in-law  at  the  foot ;  on  the 
right  of  my  mother  sat  my  sister  Helen  and  myself;  on  the  left  of  my  mother  sat 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  and  my  cousin  (if  she  was  present,  which  I  do  not  distinctly 
remember)  next  to  the  Bishop. 

.    2.  Did  Bishop  Onderdonk  walk  with  you  from  the  parlor  into  the  dining-room, 
or  lead  you  in  T 

He  did  not. 

3.  Did  you  communicate  to  Mr.  Richmond  your  reason  for  going  with  him  to 
obtain  the  affidavit  of  Mrs.  Lewis  1 

I  did. 

4.  Did  you  converse  with  him  during  the  ride  or  walk,  or  both,  on  the  subject 
of  charges  against  Bishop  Onderdonk  ? 

I  did. 

5.  Did  you  talk  freely  with  him  upon  that  subject? 
I  did. 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

6.  You  stated  that  you  and  Miss  Riker  left  abruptly,  in  consequence  of  some- 
thing the  Bishop  did,  and  yet  you  state  that  when  he  did  it,  Miss  Riker  was  going 
out  of  the  study  door  and  you  were  on  your  way  :  how  do  you  reconcile  this  1 

I  thought  I  was  understood.  I  did  not  say  that  Miss  Riker  and  I  were  both  going 
out  of  the  door,  but  that  she  was,  and  I  was  on  my  way  towards  the  door. 


62 

7.  What  do  you  mean  then  by  saying  that  you  left  abruptly  * 
By  not  bidding  adieu,  and  walking  fast  out. 

8.  But  did  you  not  say  that  you  were  on  your  way,  that  is,  had  started  to  go 
when  this  occurred  ? 

We  had  risen  to  go,  but  the  Bishop  detained  us  to  give  us  a  Journal  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

9.  Then,  by  saying  that  you  left  abruptly,  am  I  to  understand  that  you  did  not 
start  abruptly  1 

You -are. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

10.  Did  the  Bishop  grant  the  request  to  use  the  church  for  the  Sewing  Society  * 
He  did.  ' 

By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

11.  Were  there  any  acts  of  the  Bishop  previous  to  the  13th  of  June,   1841, 
with  which  you  had  found  fault,  and  what  were  they  1 

I  had  always  esteemed  him  most  highly.     There  were  not. 

12.  On  parting  with  Miss  Riker,  how  did  the  Bishop  take  leave  of  her  1 
I  do  not  remember. 

13.  Have  you  been  always  a  member  of  St.  James's  congregation,  and  if  not,  of 
what  other  have  you  l. 

Not  always  of  St.  James's  :  for  a  long  time  of  St.  Paul's,  and  then  of  Calvary, 
then  of  St.  James's,  and  now  of  St.  Mark's. 
By  Bishop  Whittingham. 

14.  Had  you,  previously  to  the  occurrence  of  13th  of  June,  1841,  any  reason  to 
suspect  Bishop  Onderdonk  of  being  capable  of  impropriety  of  deportment  towards 
females  '\ 

I  had  not. 

15.  Was  your  dress  on  the  13th  June,  of  the  same  make  as  that  worn  by  your 
sister  Helen  on  the  same  day  * 

No,  sir. 

16.  Was  your  dress  on  that  day  made  according  to  the  then  prevailing  fashion? 
Not  altogether,  sir. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

30.  Was  there  any  difficulty  in  the  Bishop's  putting  his  hand  in  your  bosom, 
arising  from  the.fashion  of  your  dress  "? 
No. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  the  Court  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


Friday,  December  20ih,  1844,  > 
half-past  nine  o'clock,  A.  M.   $ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North 
Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  Soufh  Carolina, 
Maryland,  and  Delaware;  the  Assistant  Bisliopof  Virginia;  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalte'r  for  the  clay,  and 
prayers. 

MKS.  CHARLOTTE  E.  BEAKE,  having  been  s\vorn  on  Saturday  the  14th 
instant,  was  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  and 
examined. 


•  •    .  •    •  .    .•       . .'          •       •  •        •     J      .  .       .. 

•  .  .   '        :  •  .  (         .  • .    •       • 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  name  ?      •  5'-l  .'  • 
Charlotte  E.' Beare.                                           •      .        : 

2.  Who -is  your  husband.? 
Rev.  HenryJM.  Beare. 

3.  Where  does  he  reside  ?         •    .  .          .    ; 
'  At  Bayside^  on  Long  Island.                ,  .  - 

•  4v  Is  he  a  Rector  of  a  Church  there  ;  and  of  what  Church,  and  how  long  has  he 
been  such  !.-. 

'   Ziun  Chvireh,  Lit.tle  Neck;  since  two  years 'ago  last. May. 

5.  When  was  you  married  ?• 

i    Eighth  of  June,  1842.      '..'•'  .  •. '.   ' 

6.  Do  yo'u  know,  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Onderdonk  ?     • 
I-do. 

7.  When  was  you  first.'introduced  to  .him.?         . 

Twelfth  of  July,  1842.     .  .  •  . 

ft.  Did  Bishop  Qnde'rdonk'ever  visit  your  hoiise  ;•  and  when  waS  the  first  occa- 
sion of.  his  doing  so  ? 

Seventeenth  of  July,  1842.  .  .  •':         .'   •         •    •     .  .' 

•  9.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  in  full  communion 
with  the  same  ?       ;      .  .  '      .    .' 

I  am.  .'•'*',  •  ••''     •  , 

10.  How  I6ng -have  you  been  a  ebmrnunica.nt  ? 

Since  1840.  ,  •'  .•!'<;.. 

11.  On  what  occasion  was  it  that  the'Bisb,op  first  visited  your  house  ? 
To.  hold,  confirmation  in  ^ion  Church. .       : 

12.  Did  you  ride  in  the  same  carriage  w^th  him  on  that  day  ?      . 

I  did.        ..  .  ; 

13.'  More  than  once?  .        . 

•I  did.     ;  '    .'  '•..."    '.          '';  ;    ..    •'     ;    '  j»  \   .. 

14".  In  what  part  of  the  day  was  the  first  ride  ;  and  from  what  .place,  and  to 
what  place? 

After  the  morning  service  ;  from  church  to  our  home. 

15.  What  was  the  distance  from- the  church  to  your  home?  *M  ; 

•  About  a  mile:  '  .  « .  •  : 

16.  Who  rode  in  the  carriage  with  you  besides  the  Bishop V  and  how  were  the 
parties  seated  ? 

My  husband's  mothpir  and  his  nephew,  who  were  sitting  on  Tthie  fcorit  seat ;  'the: 
Bishop  and  myself  qn-the  back  s.eat. 

17.  On  which  side  bf  the  Bi$hop  did  you  sit  ?  '  .       . 
At  his  'right  hand.  .                                              •    '. 

18.  Will  .you  please  state  what  occurred  between  you  and  the  Bishop  during 
that  ride  ?'    •          .       .  '  •    '  ';'. 

The  Bishop  put  his  arm  argund  me  in  an  unbecoming  manner,  which  caused  me 
.  to  draw,  from  liini:     There 'is  nothing  more  to  state  of  that  ride. 

19.  pn.wliat  part  of  your  body  <lid  ihe  Bishop  put  hjs  hand  vyhen.he  put  his  arm 
around  you  as  you  haVe  stated  ?  '•       •    .  .       .       . 

His  hand  pressed  upon  my  bosom.  ,    '     .  .        • 

20.  When  did  you  first  communicate 'the  knowledge  of  this  transaction  to  any 
person,  and  to  \vhom  ?  '.  . 

To  my  hiisband' soon  after  we  returned  home;  he  walked  home. 

21.  What -was  said  By  you 'to  your  husband  when  you  first  communicated  th0 
fact  to  him;  and  what  w.as  his  reply  ? 

;I  told!  him  in- this  way  ;  that  I  did  not  wish  to  ride  wifh  the  Bishop  ia  the  after- 
noon, as  1;  thought  him  too  familiar  in  his  manners.     He  asked  me  in  what  way. 
I.  told  him  the  occurrence  of  the  morning,  and  he  expressed ,great  surprise.     He 
.'-said,  u  If'ywi  can  avoid  it,  do  not  let  it  alter  your  manner. towaids  him-  whHe  he  is 
in  our  house."  '  That  was  all. 


64 

22.  You  say  you  rode  with  the  Bishop  a  second  time  that  day  ;  from  what  place 
and  to  what  place  ? 

From  Mrs.  Franklin's  house  to  our  house ;  about  a  mile  and  a  half. 

23.  Did  the  Bishop  dine  at  your  house  on  that  day  1 
He  did  ;  after  the  morning  service. 

24.  Who  composed  the  party  at  dinner  ? 

My  husband's  mother,  the  Bishop,  my  husband's  brother,  his  nephew,  my  hus- 
band and  myself.  I  think  that  was  all. 

.25.  What  occurred  between  you  and  the  Bishop  at  your  own  house,  between  the 
morning  and  afternoon  service  ? 

The  Bishop  put  his  arm  around  me,  and  once  raised  my  head  by  my  chin,  and 
kissed  me. 

26.  Who  was  present  1 

I  think  there  was  no  one  in  the  room  but  my  husband's  mother. 

27.  How  did  you  go  to  church  in  the  afternoon  ;  and  who  accompanied  you  * 

I  rode  with  Mr.  Thomas' Beare,  my  husband's  brother;  the  Bishop  rode  with 
my  husband,  and  I  think  his  nephew,  in  another  carriage. 

28:  Where  did  you  go  after  the  afternoon  service  ;  and  who  accompanied  you  ? 

To  the  house  of  Mr.  Joseph  L.  Franklin.  I  rode  as  far  as  the  top  of  the  Jane 
with  Thomas  Beare  ;  he  was  going  directly  home,  and  not  to  Mr.  Franklin's.  1 
left  his  vehicle  and  rode  the  remainder  of  the  way  with  the  Bishop  and  my  hus- 
band, which  was  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile. 

29.  How  long  did  you,  in  company  with  the  Bishop  and  your  husband,  remain 
at  Mr.  Franklin's1? 

Until  about  9  o'clock  in  the  evening. 

30.  Was  Mr.  Franklin  one  of  your  husband's  parishioners  ? 

He  had  a  pew  there  ;  but  did  not  attend  regularly.  He  belonged  to  the  Flush- 
ing Church. 

31.  How  did  you  ride  home — with  whom— and  how  were  the  parties  seated  ? 
In  a  one-horse  family  barouche,  our  own,  with  two  seats  to  accommodate  four 

persons.     The  Bishop  and  myself  were  on  the  back  seat,  my  husband  and  his 
nephew  on  the  front. 

32.  Do  you  remember  on  which  side  of  the  Bishop  you  rode  ? 

At  his  right  hand.  My  husband  sat  in  front  of  me  ;  his  nephew  in  front  of  the 
Bishop. 

33.  State,  as  particularly  as  you  can,  what  occurred  between  you  and  the  Bishop 
on  this  last  ride  ? 

The  Bishop  put  his  arm  around  my  waist ;  then  raised  it,  and  put  it  across  the 
back  of  my  neck ;  he  thrust  his  hand  into  the  neck  of  my  dress,  down  into  my 
bosom.  I  threw  his  hand  from  there  ;  he  immediately  put  it  upon  the  Jower  part 
of  my  person.  I  pushed  it  aside  from  there,  and  he  then  with  the  other  hand  re- 
peated the  same  upon  the  other  side  of  my  person  ;  but  removed  it  towards  the 
centre  of  my  person.  I  threw  it  aside.  That  is  all. 

34.  When  he  put  his  hand  in  the  neck  of  your  dress,  on  your  bosom,  was  it,  or 
not,  your  naked  bosom  ? 

It  was  my  naked  bosom. 

35.  When  he  put  the  first  hand  on  the  Jower  part  of  your  body,  as  you  have  tes- 
tified, was  the  outside  of  the  hand,  or  the  palm  of  the  hand,  next  to  yqur  person  1 

The  palm  of  the  hand. 

36.  What  did  he  do  with  that  hand  '\ 
He  pressed  it  upon  my  person. 

37.  When  he  put   the  other  hand  upon  your  person,  and  removed  it  to  the 
centre  of  your  person,  was  the  outside  or  the  palm  of  his  hand  next  to  your 
person  1 

The  palm  of  his  hand. 

38.  Please  describe  what  he  did  with  that  hand,  when  on  your  person. 

He  placed  it  near  my  knee,  and  moved  it  along  my  leg,  up  to  my  hip,  and  the 
centre  of  my  person. 

39.  Is  there  any  further  answer  to  the  last  question  ? 
There  is  not. 


65 

40.  Did  you  communicate  the  knowledge  of  this  transaction  to  your  husband, 
and  when 1 

I  went  immediately  to  my  room  when  we  reached  h>>me>.  My  husband  soon  fol- 
lowed me.  He  asked  the  cause  of  my  agitation  ;  I  told  him  the  Bishop  had  in- 
sulted me.  He  replied,  "  Say  no  more  now  ;  let  us  join  the  family,  and  have  our 
evening  devotions."  I  calmed  myself,  and  went  d<*wn  into  the  room. 

41.  Was  that  all  that  occurred  before  you  went  down  ?   . 
Yes  ;  we  went  immediately  down. 

42.  In  what  part  of  the  ride  was  it  that  the  Pfshop  insujted  you?  . 
When  we  were  near  our  own  lane,  or  the  Jdfne  leading  to  our  house. 

43.  Did  you  say  any  thing  to  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion,  and  what  ? 
Nothing  in  reference  to  this. 

44.  Did  you  say  any  thing,  and  what  1 
No,  I  did  not. 

45.  After  the  occurrence  stated,  did  you  speak  to  the  Bishop  before  you  got  to 
the  house  \ 

I  have  no  recollection  of  doing  so. 

46.  When  did  the  Bishop  leave  your  house  on  that  occasion  ? 
The  following  morning,  immediately  after  breakfast. 

47.  Did  he  remain  during  the  night  ? 
He  did. 

48.  From  the  time  when  you  was  first  introduced  to  the  Bishop,  to  the  time  h» 
came  to  your  house,  as  you  have  stated,  did  you  see  him  ? 

I  did  not,  until  I  met  him  at  the  church. 

49.  When  did  you  meet  him  at  the  church1? 
In  the  morning  of  that  day,  before  service. 

50.  Did  he  come  to  your  house  before  that  service  1 
Ha  did  not.     I  think  1  am  right  when  I  state,  that. 

51.  With  whom  did  the  Bishop  leave  your  house  when  he  took  his  departure  T 
My  husband  took  him  to  College  Point,  about  seven  miles  from  our  house. 

52.  In  what  manner  did  he  take  leave  of  you  when  he  was  about  to  depart  ? 
He  approached  me  and  took  my  hand  ;  and  advanced,  as  I  supposed,  to  kiss  me  ; 

I  drew  from  him,  and  he  did  not  do  it.  I  did  not  extend  my  hand ;  .he  took  it. 
After  he  was  seated  in  the  carriage,  he  raised  his  hand  to  his  lips,  and  waved  it 
to  me 

Cr  oss-Examination. 

1.  Have  you  at  any  time  made  an  affidavit,  or  any  other  statement  in  writing,, 
of  the  transactions  to  which  you  have  just  testified  ? 

I  have  made  no  affidavit.     I  drew  up  a  statement  in  writing. 

2.  Wb>n  did  you  draw  it  up  "\ 

I  think  about  three  weeks  since. 

3.  Is  that  statement  in  existence  now  * 
It  is  destroyed. 

4.  For  what  purpose  did  you  prepare  it  * 

To  refresh  my  memory,  and  to  show  it  to  my  uncle.     He  had  not  previously 
known  the  facts — I  should  say  the  particulars. 

5.  Was  that  statement  at  any  time  out  of  .your  possession  ? 
My  husband  had  it  at  one  time,  and  so  did  rny  uncle. 

6.  When  did  you  destroy  it  T 
Some  time  during  the  last  week. 

7.  Do  you  mean  since  you  first  attended  here  to  testify  on  this  trial  ? 

I  cannot  say  that  it  is  destroyed.     I  have  not  destroyed  it.     I  left  it  at  home 
ing  about.     I  have  not  seen  it  since  last  week. 

8.  Do  you  mean  that  you  left  it  carelessly  at  home  lying  about,  or  that  you  have 
reserved  it,  so  that  it  cannot  be  found  by  any  person .? 

I  cannot  say  where  it  is. 

9.  Have  you.  at  any  time  read  a  statement  of  this  matter,  prepared  by  your  hus- 
band, or  by  any  other  person  ? 

I  never  saw  one. 

9 


66 

•  10.  Has  any  such  statement  been  read  to  you  by  any  one  1 
Never. 

11.  Do  you  know  that' your  husband,  or  any  other  person,  has  prepared  a  state- 
ment purporting  to  give  the  particulars  of  the  transactions  referred  to  1 

I  know  of  none  but  his  affidavit.  . 

12.  Have  you  read  his  affidavit,  or  has  it  been-  read  to  you  ? 
I  have  neither  seen.nor  heard  it. 

13.  Have  you  stated  these  transactions  to  any  other  persons  besides  your  hus- 
band ;  and  if  so,  to  whom  1 

•  t  To  my  aunt  Grosvenor,  to  my  aunt,  Mrs.  John  P.  Austin,  and  to  Mrs.  Kip,  her 
mother.     To  no  others  before  my  husband's  affidavit  was  given. 

.    14.  When  was  your  husband's  affidavit  given  ? 

A  few  days,  I  think,  .before  the  close  of  the  General  Convention. 

15.-  Do  you  know  whether  any  person  applied  to  your  husband  for  that  affidavit; 
and  if  so,  who  it  was  1 

Rev.  JameS  C.  Richmond.     He  did  not  give  h  to  him. 

16.  To  whom  did  he  give  it? 

I  really  cannot  say.     It  was  given  in  the  city  of  PVuladelphia: 
.  17.  Did  Mr.  Richmond  apply  to  you  for  an  affidavit  1 

I  think  he  did  nqf,  to  myself. 

18.  Did  he  apply  to  your  husband,  as  you  have  reastm  to  believe%far  an  affidavit 
from  you  ?  • .  .     . 

T  think  he  did. 

19.  Was  Mr.  Richmond  going  to  Philadelphia  abont  that  time  ! 
He  was. 

20.  Did  your  husband  ask  you  to  give  your  affidavit  of  the  facts  T 
He  did  not.      '.•'.'••        . 

.  .21.'  Are  there  any  qther  persons  to  whom  you  stated  these  facts,  previous  to  the 
making  of  the  affidavit  referred  to,'  than  those  whom  you  have  already  mentiohed? 
1  spoke,  of  it  to.no  one  but  those  I  mentioned;  and  not  to.  them  until  I  was  asked 
by  my  aunt  Giiosvenor.     I  was  not  directly  asked  by  the  .others.  ^ 

22.  How  long  after  the  occurrences  you  have  testified  to,  was  it  when  you  made 
the  -first  statement  to  either  of  the*  persons  whom  you  have  named  ? 

About  eighteen  mchiths.  . 

23.  When  did  you  first  see  Bishop  Onderdonk 'after  July  17, '1842,  and  where  I 
I  th'ink  it  was  about  the  10th  of  May,  1843,  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Franklin-,  the 

gentleman  before  referred  to. 

.  -24.  Upon  what  occasion  did  you  see  him  there  at  that  time  1 

The  marriage  of  Miss  Franklin,  which  wa*  solemnized  by  the  .Bishop.* 

25.  Did  you  know,  before  you  went  to  Mr.  Franklin's,  that  the  Bishop  was  to 
be  there  ? 

I  supposed  he  was.  "  .  > 

26.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  the  Bishop  oh  that  occasion  ? 
I  had  not. 

27.  Did  you  speak  to  him,  or  he  to. you  1 

He  bowed,  and  I  returned  it,  as  we  passed  into,  the  refreshment  room. 

28.  Was  your  husband  with  you  then  ?   '  . 
He  was. 

29.  Did  any^salutation,  and  if  so,  what,  pass"  between  your  husband  and  the 
Bishop  T  .  . ' 

^  I  do  not  remember  that  any  words  were  spoken  at  that  time.'    He  bowed. 

30.  Did  any  conversation,  on  the  occasion  of  this  visit  to  Mr.  Franklin's,  pass 
between  your  husband  arid  the  Bishop  ? 

He  will  remember  that  better  than  I  do.  '  I  cannot  say. 

31.  Did  you  not  shake  hands  withUhe  Bishop  prt  that  occasion  ? 
I  did  not. 

32.  When,  and  where,  did  you  next  meet  the  Bishop? 

At  the  house  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Schroeder — on  the  Bishop's  annual  visitation — in 
the  village  of  Flushing.     It  was,  I  think,  about  the  12th  of  July,  1843. 

33.  Was  it  in  the  day-time,  of  in  the  evening  V 


67 

In  the  day-time. 

34.  Was  your  husband  with  you  1 
He  was. 

35.  How  long  were  you  and  your  husband  in  company  wittf  the  Bishop  on  that 
occasion  ? 

Not  many  minutes.  We  met  him  when  we  entered,  ajxi  again  just  before  we 
left. 

36.  Did  you  remain  in  the  same  room  in  which  tha/Bishop  was  during  your 
stay  ?  / 

We  did  not.  / 

37.  Describe,  then,  the  circumstances  of  that  vyit,  and  of  your  meeting  the 
Bishop  when  you  entered,  and  when  you  left  the  h<«se. 

When  we  entered  the  room  where  the  Bishop  /as  sitting,  Dr.  Wainwright  was 
in  conversation  with  him  ;  I  was  leaning  on  Dr  Schroeder's  arm ;  Miss  Strong 
and  my  husband  came  after  us.  We  spoke  tr  the  gentlemen  sitting  there,  and 
went  immediately  out  of  the  room.  The  genfc'emen  referred  to  were  the  Bishop 
and  Dr.  Wainwright.  After  going  through  tie  other  parts  of  the  building,  near  the 
foot  of  the  stairs  leading  to  the  chapel,  we  rxet  the  Bishop,  Archdeacon  Cummings, 
and  Dr.  Schroeder,  who  had  left  us  in  the  meanwhile,  to  meet  the  Archdeacon,  as 
I  suppose.  I  do  not  remember  that  any  conversation  occurred  there — some  questions 
passed  between  my  husband  and  the  Bishop.  We  left  immediately  after  that. 

38.  What  was  said  between  yourself  your  husband,  and  the  Bishop,  on  your  first 
meeting,  as  you  have  described  ? 

I  remember  only  the  common  salutations  at  meeting. 
.39.  Do  you  include  in  those,  shading  of  hands  ? 
Not  myself. 

40.  Did  the  Bishop  extend  his  hand  to  you  ! 
I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

41.  Are  you  positive  that  you  did  not  shake  hands  with  him* 
It  is  my  firm  belief  that  I  did  not. 

42.  When  you  and  yrur  husband  again  met  the  Bishop,  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs. 
what  were  the  questions  which  passed  between  your  husband  and  the  Bishop  T 

They  were  with  rfgard  to  my  husband's  examination,  and  if  the  Bishop  was 
coming  to  our  house 

43.  Did  you  takt  part  in  the  conversation  ? 
I  did  not. 

4"4.  What  wen;  the  words,  as  near  as  you  can  recollect  them,  of  your  husband's 
inquiry  about  tie  Bishop's  coming  to  your  house  ? 
"  Will  you  oome  to  my  house  to  dinner  V 
43.  Was  ihat  expressed  coldly,  or  with  apparent  cordiality  ? 
I  should  think,  coldly,  as  his  eyes  were  averted  from  the  Bishop  while  asking  him. 

46.  Dia  you  join  in  the  request  ? 
I  did  not 

47.  What  was  the  Bishop's  reply  to  your  husband's  request  ? 

It  was  in  the  affirmative.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  remember  all  the  words ;  I 
know  that  he  assented. 

48.  Do  you  not  recollect  the  Bishop's  saying  that  he  already  had  an  invitation 
to  dine  with  Mr.  Franklin  on  the  next  day  ? 

I  cannot  recall  it  to  my  mind. 

49.  Do  you  not  remember  that  you  and  your  husband,  or  one  of  you,  urged  the 
Bishop,  notwithstanding  his  excuse,  to  dine  with  you  the  next  day  ? 

I  remember  nothing  of  the  kind. 

50.  When  you  say  that  you  remember  nothing  of  the  kind,  do  you  mean  to  be 
understood,  that  nothing  of  the  kind  took  place,  or  that  it  may  have  taken  place, 
and  you  have  forgotten  it  ? 

I  know  that  he  was  not  urged. 

51.  Did  not  the  Bishop  say  that  he  would  accept  your  invitation,  provided  you 
would  take  care  that,  in  doing  so,  he  gave  no  offence  to  Mr.  Franklin,  or  to  that 
effect  * 

I  do  not  remember  that  any  thing  was  said  about  Mr.  Franklin. 


52.  Was  there  no  conversation  whatever  respecting  the  invitation  to  dinner,  ex- 
cept your  husband's  question  already  stated,  and  the  Bishop's  reply  in  the  affirma- 
tive ? 

I  remember  none. 

53.  Did  you  and  yiur  husband,  or  either  of  you,  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop  on 
leaving  him  ? 

/  did  not ;  my  husbat/i  can  answer  for  himself. 

54.  I  wish  you  to  answn.as  to  your  husband's  act,  on  the  occasion  just  inquired  of. 
I  can  simply  say  that  I  cid  not  see  him. 

55.  Am  I  to  understand  7ou  from  your  description  of  your  manner  towards  the 
Bishop,  on  the  occasion  of  ymr  visit  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Schroeder's,  that  it  was  stu- 
diedly repulsive  towards  the  3ishop  T 

I  cannot  say  that  it  was  stud/^dly  repulsive,  for  I  determined  to  treat  him  civilly 
as  my  Bishop. 

56.  Who  accompanied  you  to  your  carriage  upon  leaving  Dr.  Schroeder's,  and 
helped  you  into  the  carriage  ? 

I  cannot  remember  any  one  but  my  husband. 

57.  Did  not  the  Bishop  ! 

I  cannot  remember  if  he  did. 

58.  Was  your  object,  and  that  of  you:  husband,  in  going  to  Dr.  Schroeder's  that 
day  to  meet  the  Bishop  ? 

We  had  a  friend  with  us  who  was  anxrms  to  see  confirmation — we  arrived  too 
late  to  witness  it. 

59.  Who  was  that  friend  ? 
Miss  Strong. 

60.  Was  she  staying  at  your  house ! 
She  was. 

61.  Did  she  return  home  with  you  ? 
She  did. 

62.  Was  not  confirmation  to  take  place  in  your  husbcjid's  church  the  next  day  T 
It  was. 

63.  Was  the  object  you  have  stated  for  going  to  Dr.  Schroeder's  the  only  one  1 
She  expressed  a  desire  to  witness  confirmation,  and  als»  to  view  Dr.  Schroe- 
der's institution. 

64.  The  next  morning,  when  you  first  saw  the  Bishop,  wher«  did  you  meet  him  1 
After  the  morning-services  wrere  concluded,  in  the  vestry-room. 

65.  Did  you  not  meet  him  in  the  vestry-room,  before  the  moming-service  1 
I  did  not. 

66.  Was  your  husband  in  the  vestry-room  when  you  met  the  Bishop  there  1 
I  cannot  say  as  to  that. 

67.  Did  you  speak  to  the  Bishop  when  you  met  him  ? 

I  did,  and  introduced  some  friends.     They  were  female  friends.     I  should  say, 
a  female  friend. 

68.  Were  you  not  in  the  vestry-room  before  the  morning-service,  assisting  your 
husband  in  making  arrangements  with  the  vessels,  &c.,  for  the  communion! 

It  is  my  custom  to  do  so,  but  I  cannot  recollect  it  on  that  morning. 

69.  Did  you  not  go  to  the  church  that  morning  with  your  husband  ] 

It  is  my  impression  that  he  went  before  me,  to  be  examined  as  a  candidate  for 
Priest's  Orders,  preparatory  to  his  ordination  that  day. 

70.  In  the  vestry-room  that  morning,  before  morning-service,  do  you  not  re- 
member that  the  Bishop  complimented  you  upon  being  so  good  a  clergyman's  wife, 
in  consequence  of  your  assisting  in  preparations  for  the  Holy  Communion  1 

I  do  not  remember  it. 

71.  Who  was  the  friend  whom  you  introduced  to  the  Bishop  in  the  vestry-room, 
after  morning-service  ? 

Mrs.  Kip,  the  mother  of  my  aunt  by  marriage. 

72.  Did  any  conversation  take  place  between  you  and  the  Bishop  at  that  time  1 
I  cannot  recall  any. 

73.  I  have  not  asked  you  what  was  said,  but  whether  any  conveisation  took 
place  between  you  and  the  Bishop  1 

9 


69 

I  must  reply  as  before,  that  I  have  no  recollection  of  any. 

74.  Did  you  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  1 
I  think  I  did  not. 

75.  Did  he  extend  his  hand  to  you  ? 
I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

76.  Did  the  Bishop  ever  approach- you  without  extending  his  hand  to  you? 

I  cannot  remember  that  Re  has  extended  it  since  that  occurrence,  except  the 
morning  when  he  left. 

77.  Was  your  manner  upon  this  occasion  towards  the  Bishop  such  as  to  impress 
upon  an  observer  the  idea  of  coldness  on  your  part  towards  him  ?  , 

I  do  not  know  what  impression  it  made  upon  others,  but  my  reserve  was  marked 
by  friends. 

78.  By  whom  ? 

By  both  Miss  Strong  and  Mrs.  Kip. 

79.  Do  you  not  remember  the  Bishop's  shaking  hands  with  you  at  that  time, 
and  congratulating  you  upon  your  husband's  ordination  ? 

I  do  not. 

80.  Did  you  state  to  Miss  Strong,  or  to  Mrs.  Kip,  when  they  remarked  iipon 
your  reserve,  that  there  was  any  reason  for  it  ? 

I  did  not.     I  was  particularly  desirous  of  keeping  it  from  them. 

81.  How  long  after  this  was  it  when  you  told  the  occurrences  of  the  17th  of 
July,  1842,  to  Mrs.  Kip  ? 

About  six  months. 

82.  You  say  it  is  usual  with  you  to  assist  your  husband  in  the  vestry-room,  in 
making  arrangements  for  the  Communion :  have  you  any  recollection* of  having 
departed  from  your  usual  custom  that  morning  ;   if  so,  for  what  reason  ? 

It  is  my  impression  that  he  had  already  arranged  them  when  I  reached  the 
church,  as  I  did  not  go  over  until  near  church-time,  with  my  friends,  and  there 
were  gentlemen  in  the  vestry-room. 

83.  Then  you  do  recollect  departing  from  your  custom  that  morning  1 

I  cannot  recollect  it,  but  my  impression  is  that  when  I  reached  the  church,  the 
things  were  already  arranged'. 

84.  Did  your  husband  ride  or  walk  to  church  that  morning  ? 
I  cannot  say  whether  he  walked  or  whether  he  rode. 

85.  Did  you  not  bring  the  Communion  vessels  with  you  in  the  carriage  to 
church  ? 

It  is  my  impression  that  my  husband  took  them  with  him. 

86.  Does  that  refresh  your  recollection  as  to  whether  he  rode  or  walked  ? 
It  does  not,  for  he  frequently  takes  them  over  in  his  hand. 

87.  When  you  left  the  church  to  return  home  that  morning,  in  whose  company 
did  you  leave  ? 

In  company  with  Mrs.  Kip  and  Miss  Strong. 

88.  Where  were  your  husband  and  the  Bishop  at  that  time  ? 

The  Bishop  was  at  the  church  when  we  left.  I  think  my  husband  did  not  go 
home  with  us.  I  cannot  remember. 

89.  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood  that  you  do  not  rememier  whether  the  Bishop 
was  accompanied  home  by  your  husband,  or  not  1 

I  know  that  they  did  not  come  home  together ;  but  I  cannot  remember  whether 
Mr.  Beare  rode  with  us,  or  walked  with  his  brother. 

90.  Did  the  Bishop  come  alone  1 

The-  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin  brought  him  to  our  house,  in  company  with  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Sweetzer. 

91.  Were  those  gentlemen  present  at  the  services  in  your  husband's  church 
that  morning  1 

They  were. 

32.  Were  they  invited  to  dine  at  your  house  that  day  ? 
They  did  dine'  there,  so  I  supple  they  were  ;  but  I  do  not  remember. 
93.  When  the  Bishop  and  the  gentlemen  accompanying  him  reached  your  house, 
did  you  not  shake  hands  with  all  of  them  ? 
I  did  not. 


94.  pid  you  with  any  of  them  1 

I  did  not-.  .  .  *  J 

95.  Did  you  enter  into  cbnversation  with  the  Bishop  after  he  reached  your  house ! 
•I  had  no  conversation  with  him. 

96.  Did  he  not  speak  to  you  at  all,  when  he  reached  your  house  1 
I  did  not  see  him  when  he  reached  the.  house.- 

97.  When  you  first  saw  him,  did  he  speak  to  you  1  • 

•  I  did  not  enter  the  room  until  the  dinner  was  near  ready.     I  do  not  remember 
his  addressing  me  particularly. 

98.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  he.  did  not  addres's  you  at  all  before  dinner  ? 
I  cannot  positively  say  he  did  not,  but  I  say  I  cannot  recall  it. 

99.  Did  you  purposely  avoid  meeting  the  Bishop  before  dinner  * 

I  wished  to  be  in  his  presence  as  little  as  possible.   .  I  must  say  that  I  avoided 
conversation  with  him ;  but  I  was  busy  in  my  domestic  affairs  outside. 

.100.  Who  were  the  party  at  dinner? 

Mrs.  Kip,  Miss  Strong,  the  Bishop,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin,  Rev.  Mr.  Sweet- 
zer,  Mr.  Thomas  Beare,  I  think  his  son,  i  lad  of  twelve  or  thirteen  years,  my  hus- 
band and  myself,  and  two  grand-children  of  Mrs.  Kip,  from  five  to  eight  years  of 
age  :  that  is  all  I  remember. 
.    101.  What  seat  at  table  did  you  occupy! 

The  head  of  the  table. 

102..  Your  husband  where  1 

Opposite  me. 

103.  Where  did  the  Bishop  sit1? 

It  is  my  impression  that  he  sat  the  second  on  my  right. 

104.  Did  you  converse  with  the  Bishop  during  dinner  1 

I  merely  helped  him  to  the  dishes  that  were  before  me.     I  have  no  recollection 
that  any  thing  further  passed  between  us. 

105.  ,Did  not  the  Bishop  address  himself  to  you  at  all  during  dinner  * 
I  cannot  recollect  that  he  did. 

106.  Is  it  possible  that  he  could  have  not  spoken  t6  you  during  dinner  without 
your  noticing  such  a  circumstance  ?     • 

Whether  k  be  possible  or  not,  I  cannot  recall  it. 

107.  Did  you  converse  with  anybody  else  during  that  dinner? 

I  cannot  remember  that  I  did  ;  for  my  reserve  was  remarked  again  by  my  friends. 

108.  Did  your  husband  converse  with  the  Bishop,  or  the  Bishop  with  your  hus- 
band 1 

It  is  my  impression  that  the  conversation  was  general  among  the  gentlemen — I 
cannot  say. 

109.  DH  you  see  the  Bishop  and  your  husband  together,  apparently  in  conversa- 
tion, before  dinner  ? 

I  did  not. 

110.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  treated  the  Bishop,  during  dinner,  with  such 
palpable  neglect  that  it  was  remarked  by  others  ? 

I  meant  to  treat  \am  with  civility — I  cannot  say  that  palpable  neglect  wae  re- 
marked, but  only  my  general  reserve. 

111.  How  long  did 'the  dinner,  last? 

I  think  we  soon  concluded,  as  there  was  a  very  short  intermission — I  cannot  fix 
the  time  definitely. 

112.  After  dinner,' what  became  of  your  husband,  yourself,  and  the  Bishop1? 
I  think  we  immediately  prepared  to  return  to  church,  and  all  went  to  church. 

113.  Who  went  with  the  Bishop* 

The  Rev.  Messrs.  Goodwin,  and  Sweetzer,  and  I  think  Mrs.  Kip. 

114.  With  whom  did  you  go  1 

I  think  Miss  Strong,  my  husband,  his  brother,  and  myself,  went  in  our  carriage. 

115.  Did  you  meet  the  Bishop  at  the  church  before  or  after  the  services  of  the 
afternoon  ] 

I  think  we  all  reached  the  church  at  the  sarwj  time,  and  went  to  the  vestry- 
room.  I  remember  that  the  Bishop's  son  opened  ihe  door  at  the  time — I  do  not 
know  his  name — it  is  my  impression  it  is  Henry. 


71 

116.  Who  officiated,  that  afternoon? 

I  think  Mr.  Sweetzer  read  the  service ;  the  Bishop  preached  and  administered 
confirmation. 

•117.  Do  you  remember  how  many  were  confirmed  ? 

My  impression  is  but.  three. 

•118.  Did  you  meet  the  Bishop  in  the  vestry-room  after  the  afternoon  services 
were  over !       '    .      '  • 

"   I  think  I  did,  as  I  remember  going  in  with  the  Bishop's  daughter  and  his  daugh- 
ter-in-law. 

119.  Did  you  speak  to  the  Bishop  in  the  vestry-room  ?     .  . 
I  think  not.                  .     '                                                         .       . 

120.  I 'desire  you  to  be  as  distinct  as  possible  in  your,  recollection,  whether  you 
spoke  to  the  Bishop,  or  the  Bishop  to  you,  in  the  vestry-room  that  afternoon. 

I  have  no  recollection  of  exchanging  any  words  with  the  Bishop; . 

121.  Is  it  your  belief  that  you  did  not  ?'  .   '  .       '    , 
•  .It  is  my  belief. 

122.  Did  nothing  pass  between  you  and  the  Bishop  when  he  {eft  the  church  to 
return  to  Flashing  ?  '  . 

I  cannot  remember  any  thing  :  but  I  suppose  he  must  have  bid. me  good  after- 
noon— but  1  cannot  remember  it. 

123.  Do  you  not  suppose  that  he  shook  hands  with  you' also  ?• 

No,  I  do  not.      •  •  •  •  .:.'...  '.     • 

124.  Have  you  ever  met  the  Bishop  since? 

I  have  not  met  him  since-.  •'  .        *•'".'„    ••"  ,_..'•  / 

125.  Did  the  Bishop  ever  address  to  you  any  immodest 'or  indelicate 'language  !" 
He  never  did.         •  '•••'./..   !• 

126.  -Were  the  insults  which  you  have  described. in  .your  'direct'  exarmnatipnr  ac- 
companied by  any  expression  whatever  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  ? 

They  were  rjot.    :  .         .       . 

127.  You  say  that  the  first  insult  offered  you  by  the  Bishop,  .was-,  on  your  way 
home  after  morning  service,  on  the  l?th  of  July,  -1842.     What'tos  fixed  that  pre- 
cise date  with  so  much. 'accuracy  in  yodr  memory-? 

It  was  the.  time  the  Bishop  appointed  for  confirmation1  in  pur  church,  and  thg  first  • 
lime  he  visited  our  parish.  •  ;  .  •:'••'.  -'• 

128.  Have  you  refreshed  your  recollection  :in  anr  Wa7>  as  to  the-tlafe,  by  refer- 
ence to  the  almanac  or  any  other  source 1~ 

but  I  think  I  stated  the,  truth. 


It  was  a  pleasant  day  in  Jiilv 

130.  Wiil  you'descrjbe  the  wa£pft  in  which  'you  were  riding  home  that  morning? 
It  was  a-one-tioTsefamitytyroachelo  accommodate  four.   , 

131.  Was  it  a  'covered,  carriage  ?  •:   ...     \  , 
It  had.  a  top,  but  the  side-curtains  were' up, 

sides  were 'open  frotn  ttie  back  seat  forward. 

132.  Were  the  sAles  of  the  back  seat  open, 
!    They  were  .closed. 

133.  "WTas Vie,  back  curtain  upj  or  down  V 

It  is  my  impression  that  it  was  down.   .  It  w.as. usually  .kept  ^so.  • 

134.  Kad- you  and  th6  Bishop  been  in  conversation,  before  be  made  the  first  im 
proper  advances  towards  you  thut  you  have  described-?  ..     '  . 

I:  chink  the  conversation,  was  general,  between  the  Bishop,  my  mQther-in-law,  and 
myself.  •'.••..'' 

.135.  Did  your  mother  turn  around  during  -that  c'onyersatitfn,  so  -a,s  "to"  face.ybor.- 
setf  and  the  Bishop*  :  :         V  .  ;     •  .= '' '  •  .;     ;,'''.•,.  .  '--;•' 

.     I  really  do:  not  remember  as  to  that.         :      .     '  /  •  '   . 

136.  How  did  the  persons  in  the  carriago  sit,, .relatively  to  each  other  ? 

My  mother  sat  in  front  of 'me,  and  the  little  boy  in;  front  of  the  Bjshop. . 
my  impression.  •         .'  • 


72 

137.  Did  the  little  boy  who  drove,  sit  upon  the  side  of  the  carriage  on  which  the 
driver  generally  does  ? 

He  did  not. 

138.  Your  mother  then  sat  upon  the  driver's  seaU 
She  did.    •'. 

139.  Do  you  remember  how  long  this  ride  occupied  T 

I  should  suppose  eight  to  ten  minutes. — That  would  be  rather  too  short. 

140.  Had  you  ever  conversed  with  the  Bishop,  before  you  got  into  the  carriage 
with  him  that  morning  ? 

On  one  occasion,  once  before. 

141.  You  had  been  introduced  to  him,  I  understand  you,  five  days  before  this 
occurrence.  Had  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  before  this  occurrence,  except 
a  casual  one  on  your  introduction  t 

I  had  no  conversation  with  the  Bishop,  but  at  the  time  \vhen  I  was  introduced 
to  him.  We-tlien  dined  together  at  the  house  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin: 

142.  Was  your  conversation  then  confined  to  the  table,  or  did  you  converse  with 
him  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  company  1 

We  were  in  the  presence  of  nine  or  ten  clergymen.  The  Bishop  offered  me  hi£ 
arm,  to  go  in  to  dinner,  and  I  sat  by  him  at  dinner.  1  do  not  remember  that  I  had 
any  particular  conversation  with  the  Bishop  apart  by  himself. 

143.  Did  the  conversation  in  the  carriage  cease  after  the  Bishop  first  placed  his 
hand  upon  you "? 

I  do  not  remember  that  it  'did. 

144.  How  long  was  tl\at  before  you  reached  home  ? 
When  we  were  more  than  halfway  home. 

145.  Did  yourself,  your  mother,  and  the  Bishop,  continue  to  converse  after  this  T 
I  cannot  recoHect  distinctly  as  to  th$t.     It.  is  my  impression  that  they  did.     I 

cannot  say  distinctly  whether  /  did. 

146.  Did  the  Bishop  help  you  out  of  the  carriage  when  you  reached  home  ? 
I  think  he  iqust  have  done  so,  but  I  cannot  say  distinctly. 

147.  The  secoqd  insult  in  point  of  time   was  at  your  own  house  between  the 
morning  and  evenii^  service,  as  you  stated — was  it  before  or  after  dinner  ? 

The  first  at  the  houa^  occurred  before  dinner. 

148.  Was  any  one  prc^nt  1 . 
Mother  Beare  was  preset*.. 

149.  Was  that  the  occasion  «n  which  the  Bishop  put  his  arm  around  your  waist  T 
It  was. 

150.  Did  he  press  your  person  on  that  occasion  1 

•  He  put  his  hand  upon  my  waist ;  I  cannot  say  that  he  pressed  it ;  his  arm  wa« 
around  my  waist.  •• 

151.  Have  you  forgotten  whether  he  pressed  any  part  of  your  person  at  that 
time  ! 

I  have  stated  he  did  not.' 

152.  Did  you-  pash  his  arm-  from  you,  or  in  any  wher  way  disengage  yourself 
from  him  ] 

I  did  not  push  his  arm  from  me.     I  moved  my  position. 

153.  Did  he  say  any  thing  at  the  time  he  took  this  liberty  vith.you? 
I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

154.  Were  you  standing  or  sitting  at  that  time  ? 
I  was  standing  in  the  door. 

155.  Was  your  mother  standing  or  sitting  1 
I  think  she  was  sitting; 

156.  Did  the  Bishop  advance '.  towards  you,  and  if  so,  from  what  part  o£  the 
room,  and  how  far  1 

I  was  standing  in  the  door,  and  he  approached  ;  I  cannot  tell  from  what  part  of 
the.  room-. 

157.  This,  you  say,  was  before  dinner  ;  did  you  see  your  husband  after  this  be- 
fore  dinner  \ 

I  cannot  remember  that  I  spoke  to  him ;  I  suppose  that  I  saw  him. 


73 

158.  Did  you  relate  to  him  this  insult  before  dinner  ? 
I  did  not. 

159.  Did  you  ever  relate  it  to  him  before  he  made  his  affidavit  ? 
I  told  him  all  the  particulars,  and  I  suppose  I  included  this  one. 

160.  Did  you  tell  him,  any  time  before  he  made  his  affidavit,  that  the  Bishop 
had  kissed  you  on  that  day  ? 

I  did  tell  him. 

161.  When,   particularly,  did  the  Bishop  kiss  you,  in  the  manner  you  hare 
stated  1 

I  think  it  was  not  long  before  we  left  for  the  afternoon  service. 

162.  In  what  room  was  this  ? 
In  our  usual  sitting-room. 

163.  Who  was  in  the  room  besides  yourself  and  the  Bishop  ? 
I  recollect  no  one  but  my  mother  Beare. 

164.  Did  she  see  this? 
She  did. 

1 65.  Did  you  or  she  make  any  remark  on  the  subject  to  the  Bishop ? 
We  did  not. 

166.  Did  the  Bishop  say  any  thing,  when  he  approached  you  for  this  purpose  ? 
It  is  my  impression,  that  he  made  some  such  expression,  as  "  my  daughter." 

167.  Did  you  at  the  time  regard  these  two  circumstances  in  the  house  as  insults 
to  you  ? 

I  should  have  done  so  from  any  one  else  but  the  Bishop  ? 

168.  Why  not  from  the  Bishop  ? 

1  had  too  much  confidence  in  him  to  suppose  that  he  would  offer  me  an  insult  in 
my  own  house. 

169.  Was  not  that  confidence  shaken  by  what  occurred  on  your  morning  ride  ? 
It  certainly  was  somewhat  shaken. 

170.  After  afternoon  service  that  day,  you  say  that  you  rode  towards  Mr. 
Franklin's  as  far  as  the  top  of  the  lane  with  Mr.  Thomas  Beare — how  far  was 
that  from  Mr.  Franklin's  house  ? 

About  a  quarter  of  a  mile. 

171.  When  Mr.  Beare  stopped  to  leave  you  at  the  top  of  the  lane,  where  was 
the  vehicle  in  which  your  husband  and  the  Bishop  were  ? 

It  was  at  the  same  place,  it  is  my  impression,  waiting  for  us. 

172.  Was  any  person  on  the  seat  with  the  Bishop  when  you  overtook  them? 
I  think  he  was  alone  upon  the  back  seat.     I  cannot  say  for  certain. 

173.  Who  were  upon  the  front  seat  at  that  time? 

My  husband,  and  I  think  his  nephew.     I  cannot  say  distinctly.     I  forget  these 
little  things. 

174.  Did  you  request  your  brother-in-law  to  drive  you  down  to  Mr.  Frank- 
lin's ? 

I  do  not  think  I  did. 

175.  Did  you  take  the  same  seat  with  the  Bishop  without  hesitation  ? 

I  took  the  seat  that  I  was  accustomed  to  in  riding.     I  cannot  remember  my 
thoughts  at  the  time. 

176.  Did  you  converse  freely  with  the  Bishop  during  the  ride  to  Mr.  Frank- 
lin's? 

I  cannot  say  that  I  conversed  freely  with  him  ;  I  do  not  remember  what  I  did 
say. 

177.  Did  you  take  the  Bishop's  arm  on  getting  out  at  Mr.  Franklin's  ? 
I  have  no  recollection  of  doing  it ;  though  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

178.  Did  you  converse  with  the  Bishop  there  during  the  evening  ? 
I  saw  very  little  of  him  ;  there  were  a  number  of  others  present. 

179.  The  question  is  repeated. 
I  cannot  remember  that  I  did. 

180.  Was  your  brother-in-law  staying  at  your  husband's  house  at  this  time  ? 
He  came  to  pass  the  Sunday  with  us.     He  stayed  at  our  house  that  Sunday 

night. 

10 


74 

181.  Who  invited  the  Bishop  to  Mr.  Franklin's  that  evening  ?  ' 
I  suppose  Mrs.  Franklin  must  have  done  so. 

182.  Do  you  remember  what  kind  of  a  night  that  was — dark  or  light  * 
My  impression  is,  that  it  was  a  dark  night. 

183.  Was  there  any  light  or  lamp  upon  the  carriage  T 
There  was  not. 

184.  How  long  were  you  in  going  home * 

I  do  not  know  what  answer  to  give  Jo  that ;  the  length  of  time  I  cannot  tell. 

185.  How  long  were  you  in  the  carriage  that  night,  before  the  Bishop  put  his 
arm  around  your  waist  ? 

I  have  before  stated  that  it  was  when  we  were  near  our  lane,  which  is  about 
a  quarter  of  a  mile  long, — I  think  it  is-;  it  might  be  more  or  less. 

186.  Had  you  conversed  with  the  Bishop  before  that,  after  leaving  Mr.  Frank- 
lin's? 

We  had  all  been  in  conversation  together. 

187.  The  question  is  repeated. 
I  think  that  I  did.  . 

188.  What  kind  of  a  dress  had  you  on  that  night  ? 

It  was  a  high  neck  dress,  though  not  as  high  as  the  present  fashion. 

189.  Had  you  any  shawl,  or  outer  dress  1 
I  had  Jiot ;  simply  a  collar  to  my  neck. 

190.  Did  the  Bishop  offer  you  any  indignity  before,  you  had -nearly  approached 
the  lane  leading  to  your  house  ] 

He  offered  none  at  that  time  but  what  I  have  stated. 

191.  After  you  reached  home,  were  the  family  devotions  performed  as  usual  t 
They  were. 

192.  .Who  officiated  ? 

My  husband ;  the  Bishop  declined,  I  think. 

193.  How  long  did  you  sit  up  after  that  1 
I  retired  immediately  to  my  room. 

194.  Did  your  husband  also  1 
He  did. 

195.  Did  the  Bishop  also ! 

J  think  he  did.     I  left  him  in  the  study. 

196.  Did  the  Bishop  breakfast  with  you  the  next  morning  1  « 
He  did. 

U97.  Did  you  converse  with  him  during  breakfast-time  ? 
I  did  not. 

198.  Up  to  the  time  of  his  departure,  did  you  that  morning  say  any  thing  to 
him,  or  he  to  you  * 

I  do  not  remember  that  any  thing  passed  between  us. 

199.  Did  he  take  leave  of  you,  and  shake  hands  with  you,  as  he  left  the  house  * 
He  approached  me,  and  took  my  hand. 

200.  Was  that  in  the  house,  or  on  the  front  steps  ] 
It  was  in  the  study. 

201.  You  say  that  the  Bishop  declined  performing  the  family  devotions  ;  did  he 
not  state  that  when  in  the  house  of  a  clergyman,  he  always  wished  that  clergyman 
to  perform  the  domestic  religious  exercises  1 

I  do  not  remember  it  at  that  time  :  but  I  remember  to  have  heard  him  say  that 
every  man  was  patriarch  in  his  own  family. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

53.  Did  Mrs.  Beare,  your  mother,  breakfast  with  you  and  the  Bishop,  at  the 
time  he  left  on  the  occasion  of  his  first  visit  ? 

She  did  not. 

54.  Why  1  (Objected  to  and  withdrawn.) 

55.  On  the  occasion  of  your  first  ride  with  the  Bishop,  was  it  on  Sunday  1 
It  was. 


75 

56.  Was  the  Holy  Communion  administered  on  that  day  ? 

I  think  it  was.  My  husband  was  a  Deacon,  and  could  not  administer  it.  I  think 
he  appointed  that  day  for  the  purpose,  in  consequence  ;  that  the  Bishop  might  ad- 
minister it. 

57.  You  have  spoken  in  your  cross-examination,   of  the  conversation  at  Mr. 
Franklin's,  do  you  remember  any  thing  about  it  ?  was  it  religious  conversation,  or 
what  other  ? 

I  do  not  remember  any  religious  conversation.  I  remember  some  remarks  that 
were  made  by  Mr.  Smythe. 

58.  Were  they  in  the  presence  or  hearing  of  the  Bishop  ? 

They  were  in  his  presence,  and  I  think  he  could  have  heard  them. 

59.  What  were  they  ? 

Some  one  remarked  to  Mr.  Smythe,  See  the  liberties  the  Bishop  is  taking  with 
your  lady.  Miss  Franklin  was  engaged  to  him.  .  He  replied,  Yes,  if  his  office 
did  not  protect  him,  I  would  revenge  myself. 

60.  Was  this  said  playfully,  or  otherwise  ? 
I  considered  it  playfully. 

61.  What  was  the  Bishop  doing  to  Miss  Franklin? 

He  put  his  arm  about  her,  and  laid  his  hand  upon  her  shoulder.  That  is  all  I 
saw. 

62.  What  church  did  you  go  to  in  the  afternoon  of  the  day  of  the  first  occurrence  ? 
To  the  Chapel  at  Clintonville— the  White  Stone  Chapel. 

63.  Was  the  confirmation  spoken  of  in  that  church  ? 
It  was. 

Cross- Examination  resumed. 

202.  Was  not  Mr.  Smythe  afterwards  married  to  Miss  Franklin  1 
He  was. 

203.  Who  married  them  ?     . 
Bishop  Onderdonk. 

204.  Were  you  and  Mr.  Smythe  the  only  persons  who  saw  the  affair  between 
the  Bishop  and  Miss  Franklin  on  the  occasion  referred  to  1 

There  were  several  present. 

205.  Did  the  Bishop  make  any  reply  to  this  playful  remark  of  Mr.  Smythe  ? 
I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

1.  When  the  Bishop  spent  the  night  at  your  house,  and  when  you  retired  for 
the  night  after  prayers,  did  you  bid  the  Bishop  "  good  night  T' 

It  is  my  impression  that  he  said  "  good  night,"  and  I  believe  that  I  replied,  but 
I  cannot  tell. 

2.  Are  you  positive  that  the  Bishop  said  "  good  night"  to  you  first1? 

My  impression  is,  that  as  I  went  out  of  the  door  to  go  up  stairs,  the  Bishop  said 
"  good  night"  to  me,  before  I  spoke  to  him. 
By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

3.  When  the  Bishop  called  you  "  my  daughter,"  were  you  surprised  at  the  ex- 
pression 1 

I  was  not  surprised.  The  first  day  he  met  me,  he  addressed  me  very  affec- 
tionately that  way. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 

WM.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


76 

Saturday,  December  21st,  1844,  > 
half-past  9  o'clock,  A.  M.        \ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky.  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  West- 
ern Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina, 
Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bish- 
ops of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South- Western  Missionary 
Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

Gerardus  Clark,  Esq.,  of  Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  put  in  an  affidavit 
of  the  service  of  citation  of  this  Court  upon  Miss  Ann  Wilson,  which 
affidavit  was  read,  and  filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the  Court. 

The  Counsel  for  Respondent  consented  to  receive  the  notice  of  affidavit 
read  in  Court  on  the  19th  inst.,  as  though  it  had  been  duly  sworn,  and  to 
have  it  so  filed  by' the  Clerk. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  then  moved  the  Court  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  Commissary  to  take  the  written  deposition  of  Miss  Ann  Wilson, 
whose  attendance  on  the  trial  cannot  be  obtained. 

The  motion  was  opposed  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  argued 
by  the  Counsel  on  both  sides. 

The  Court  granted  the  motion.  The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New 
Jersey,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  dissenting. 

The  dissenting  Bishops  directed  the  Clerk  to  enter  upon  the  records  of 
the  Court,  the  following  reasons  of  their  dissent : — 

[COPY.] 

The  Bishop  of  North  Carolina  dissents,  on  the  ground  that  no  sufficient 
evidence  has  been  furnished  the  Court,  that  the  attendance  of  the  witness 
cannot  be  obtained. 

(Signed,)  L.  S.  IVES. 

[COPY.] 

The  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  dissents,  because  he  thinks  no  suffi- 
cient means  have  been  used  to  induce  the  witness  to  attend  ;  because  mere 
unwillingness  to  attend  does  not  appear  to  be  sufficient  reason  to  allow  a 
Commissary  to  take  the  testimony  ;  because  no  actual  disability  on  the  part 
of  the  witness  to  attend  is  proved  to  the  Court ;  because  if  unwilling  wit- 
nesses are  allowed  to  have  their  testimony  taken  out  of  Court,  then  the 
ends  of  justice  may  be  defeated. 

December  21,  1844. 

(Signed,)  W.  H.  DE  LANCEY. 

The  Bishop  of  New  Jerse»y  dissents  for  the  above  reasons ;  and  for  the 
farther  reason,  that  the  construction  of  the  Canon  thus  adopted,  puts  the 
Respondent  in  any  case  at  disadvantage,  as  compared  with  the  Presenters, 
who  have  the  selection  of  their  own  witnesses,  and  every  opportunity  to  as- 
certain their  ability  and  willingness  to  testify,  before  they  make  the  Pre- 
sentment. 

(Signed,)  G.  W.  DOANE. 


77 

The  Bishop  of  Maryland  dissents  for  the  above  reasons  ;  and  because, 
as  he  understands,  the  course  of  the  Presentment  in  this  case  has  tended  to 
induce  the  refusal  of  the  witness  to  attend. 

(Signed,)  W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM. 

The  Court  appointed  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  a  Commissary  to  take  the 
written  deposition  of  Miss  Ann  Wilson. 

The  REV.  HENRY  M.  BEARE  was  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for 
the  Presentment,  and  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1 .  What  is  your  name  T: 
Henry  M.  Beare. 

2.  Occupation  ? 

A  minister  of  the  gospel. 

3.  Where  is  your  residence  T: 
At  Bayside,  Long  Island. 

4.  Are  you  a  Rector  of  a  Church  there,  and  how  long  have  you  been  such  1 

I  am  ;  of  Zion  Church,  Little  Neck  ;  and  have  been  since  the  1st  Sunday  of  May, 
1842. 

5.  What  is  the  name  of  your  wife  ? 
Charlotte  E.  -Beare. 

6.  In  the  year  1842,  and  what  time  in  that  year,  was  you  visited  at  your  house 
by  the  Right  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  1 

I  was,  on  the  17th  of  July,  in  that  year. 

7.  For  what  purpose  did  the  Bishop  visit  you  ? 
To  hold  confirmation  in  Zion  Church,  Little  Neck. 

8.  After  the  morning  service  did  the   Bishop  return  home  with  you,  and  if  he 
did,  who  accompanied  him  in  the  carriage  1 

He  did  come  to  my  house,  (he  had  not  been  there  in  the  morning,)  accompanied 
by  my  wife,  my  mother,  and  my  nephew. 

9.  Did  the  Bishop  dine  with  you  that,  day  1 
.     He- did. 

10.  Did  he  go  to  church  with  you  in  the  afternoon  1 
He  went  to  the  Clintonville  or  Whitestone  Chapel. 

11.  After  the  evening  service  where  did  the  Bishop  go  1 
To  the  house  of  Mrs.  Joseph  Franklin. 

12.  Did  he  return  home  with  you  that  night,  and  at  what  hour  ? 
He  did  ;  I  think  about  nine  o'clock. 

13.  In  what  description  of  carriage  did  you  ride,  and  who  composed  the  com- 
pany in  that  carriage  1 

It  was  a  one-horse  family  barouche  ;  the  company  consisted  of  Bishop  Onder- 
donk, my  wife,  my  nephew,  and  myself. 

14.  How  were  the  parties  seated1? 

Mrs.  Beare  and  Bishop  Onderdonk  were  on  the  back  seat,  and  my  nephew  and 
myself  were  on  the  front  scat. 

15.  How  long  did  the  Bishop  remain  at  your  house  T 
Until  the  next  morning  after  breakfast. 

16.  Where  did  lie  go 'then,  and  who  went  with  him  ? 
He  went  to  College  Point ;  I  accompanied  him. 

17.  Did  you  accompany  him  any  farther,  or  did  you  leave  him  there  ? 
I  accompanied  him  no  farther,  and  left  him  there. 

18.  When  did  you  next  see  Bishop  Onderdonk  ? 

I  called  in  company  with  several  clergymen  at  his  house,  I  think  it  was  about 
'ten  days  afterwards. " 

19.  What  clergymen  ? 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Higbee,  Dr.  Milnor,  and  Dr.  Muhlenberg. 


78 

20.  Did  you  call  on  the  Bishop  at  the  request  of  any  person,  and  of  whom  * 
I  called  at  the  request  of  Dr.  Muhlenberg. 

21.  Did  you  see  Bishop  Onderdonk,  and  where  ] 

I  met  him  in  his  front-room,  (his  study,)  and  he  took  us  into  the  back-room. 

22.  Who  were  present  in  the  back-room  at  that  interview  1 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  Rev.  Drs.  Muhlenberg  and  Milnor,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Higbee 
and  myself. 

23.  Now  please  state  fully  all  that  was  said  in  the  hearing  of  the  Bishop,  or  by 
(he  Bishop,  in  that  interview. 

As  far  as  I  can  remember  I  will  state.  Bishop  Onderdonk  commenced  by 
speaking  to  me  very  affectionately,  stating  what  a  high  regard  and  respect  he  had 
for  me  ;  and  that  he  would  not  intentionally,  I  think  that  was  the  woxd,  wound  the 
feelings  of  Mrs.  Beare  or  myself.  I  then  asked  Bishop  Onderdonk  whether  he 
denied  what  Mrs.  Beare  had  said  he  had  been  guilty  of.  He  said  he  did  not  deny 
it,  but  that  Mrs.  Beare  had  misunderstood,  or  misconstrued  his  motives.  HB  then 
told  me  to  offer  an  apology  to  Mrs.  Beare,  and  if  she  demanded  any  further  apology 
he  was  willing  to  make  her  one.  I  said  I  would  mention  it  to  Mrs.  Beare.  I' 
think  that  was  the  amount  of  the  conversation  that  passed  between  me  and  the 
Bishop.  Dr.  Milnor  addressed  Bishop  Onderdonk,  and  stated,  I  think,  that  there 
were  rumors  about  him.  I  think  so  ;  I  was  very  much  agitated  at  the  time  ;  I  do 
not  know  distinctly  what  Dr.  Milnor  said.  I  think  he  advised  the  Bishop  to  be 
careful,  or  cautious.  .  That  is  as  much  as  1  can  distinctly  recollect  of  the  remarks 
made  by  Dr.  Milnor  to  Bishop  Onderdonk.  .  ^ 

24.  What  had  been  said  in  that  interview  to  the  Bishop,  which  induced  him  to 
say,  that  he  would  not  wound  the  feelings  of  Mrs.  Beare  or  yourself  * 

There  was  no  previous  conversation.     The  Bishop  commenced  it  in  that  way, 
taking  me  by  the  hand. 
.  25.  Do  you  know  to  what  he  referred  ] 

The  treatment  offered  to  my  wife. 

26.  How  do  you  know  he  referred  to  that  1 

Because  he  had  been  previously  called  upon  by  Dr.  Milner,  Dr.  Muhlenberg, 
and  Dr.  Wainwright.' 

27.  How  do  you  know  that  1 

1  was  told  so  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg. 

•  28.  Was  any  thing  said  in  the  interview  you  have  named  about  that  previous 
call,  and  what  ?  ,. 

I  think  not. 

29.  Did  the  Bishop  refer  to  any  communication   made  to  him  previously  by 
either  of  those  gentlemen  1 

I  think  he  did  not. 

30.  Did  you  learn,  and  when,  that  the  Bishop  had  offered  indignity  to  your  wife  * 
I  did,  on  Sunday  morning  immediately  after  morning-service,  and  in  the  even- 
ing after  our  return  from  Mrs.  Franklin's. 

'31.  From  whom  did  you  learn  this  1 

From  Mrs.  Beare  herself. 

32.  Did  you  give  information  of  this  fact  to  any  person,  and  to  whom,  and  at 
what  time  ? 

I  gave  information  early  on  the  following  morning,  not  in  detail,  however,  to  my 
brother,  Mr.  Thomas  M.  Beare  ;  afterwards  on  the  same  day,  at  College  Point,  to 
the  Rev.  John  Kerfoot,  and  to  no  other  person  at  that  time. 

.33.  Who  was  Mr.  Kerfoot,  and  where  did  he  reside  ? 

Mr.  Kerfoot  was  a  Professor  jn  St.  Paul's  College,  and  resided  there. 

34.  Where  is  h.e  nowt 

I  think  it  is  at  Hagerstown,  Maryland. 

35.  To  whom,  and  when  did  you  next  communicate  this  fact  1 

To  my  brother,  Wm.  Beare,  about  a  year  since.  : 

36.  Did  you  ever  communicate  this  intelligence  to  Dr.  Muhlenberg'? 

I  did,  I  think,  the  day  after  Bishop  Onderdonk  left  College  Point.  %  . 

37.  Was  Mr.  Kerfoot  present  then  ? 
He  was  not. 


•    %    ».  79 

38.  Did  you  go  to-  Dr.  Muhlenberg  at  his  own  request  ?  [This  question  was 
objected  to  by  Counsel  for  Respondent,  and  waived.J 

Cross-Examination . 

'    1.  When  did  you  first  meet  Bishop  Onderdbnk,'  after  the  18th  of  July,  1842, 
when  you  separated  at  College  Point  ? 

I  think  it  was  nine  or  ten  days  afterwards,  on  the  occasion  referred  to  in  my  di- 
rect examination,  and  at  the  Bishop's  house. 
•  2. "When  did  you  next  meet  him? 

I  think  I  called  at  the  Bishop's  house  a  few  months  previous  to  my  ordination' 
to  the  Priesthood,  which  took  place  on  the  16th  of  July,  1843,  as  I  think.  It  was 
on  a  Sunday  morning  that  I  was  ordained. 

3.  How  often,  and.whe'n,  and  where  have  you  met  him  since  the  call  last  men- 
tioned !  » 

I  met  Bishop  Oriderdonk  at  Dr.  Schroeder's  institution  on  the  Saturday  previous 
to  my  ordination  to  the  Priesthood :  I  met  him  the  next  day  at  the  church :  I 
again  met  him  at  St.  John's  Chapel,  New  York,  at  the  anniversary  of  the  Sunday- 
schools  of  the  city,  after  Easter  last :  again  in  the  afternoon  of  the  .same  day,  in 
St.  Clement's  Church :  and  again  at  the  consecration  of  Christ  Church  at  Oyster 
Bay,  on  Long  Island,  in.  the  latter  part  of  June  or  July  last,  (I  think  it  was  at  that 
time.)  I  do  not  remember  any  other  times  that  I  have  met  the  Bishop. 

1.  When  you  went  to  the  house  of  the  Bishop,  in  company  with  the  Rev.  gen- 
tlemen you  have  named,  nine  or  ten 'days  after  the  17th  of  July,  1842,  did  you  go 
there  for  the  express  purpose  of  meeting  the  Bishop  upon  the  subject  which  was 
then  conversed  about  1 
I  did. 

Jr.  Give,  if.  you  can,  the  words  io>  which  the  Bishop  first  introduced  the  subject. 
As  well  as  1  can  remember  I  will  state  it ;  I  was  very  much  agitated,  and  can- 
not be  expected  to  recollect  very  accurately. 

The  Bishop  commenced  by  saying,  "  Mr.  Beare,  I  have  a  very  high  regard  and 
respect  for  you,  and  would  not  wound  your  or  Mrs.  Beare's  feelings  intentionally. 
This  is  a  very  painful  subject."  I  think  he  asked  me  .to  be  seated,  and  he  would 
explain  what  had  occurred.  When  we  were  seated  he'  said,  "I  can  assure  you  of 
my  kind  feelings  towards  you,  Mr.  Beare,  and  towards  your  wife."  I 'then  said  to 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  "  Do  yon  deny,  sir,  what  Mrs.  Beare  says  you  were  guilty  of?" 
He  said,  "  I  do  ndt  deny  it.  But  Mrs.  Beare  has  misunderstood  or  misconstrued 
my  motives."*  Then  he  said,  "  Offer  an  apology  to  Mrs.  Beare,  and  rf  she  de- 
mand any  further  apology,  I  am  ready  to  make  it.'"  That  is,  as  far  as  I  recol- 
lect my  having  any  conversation  with  the  Bishop. 

6.  Before  the  question  put  by  you  to  the  Bishop,  viz.  :  "  Do  you  deny,  sir,  what 
Mrs.  Beare  says  you  were  guilty  of?"  had  any  reference  been  made  to  Mrs.  Beare 
by  name,  or  to  any  statement  which  she  had  made  ? 

.Nothing  further  than  the  Bishop's  expression  of  kind  feeling  towards  her. 
.  7.  Did  not  the  Bishop. express  himself  to  you",  in  that  conversation,  in  the  words 
or  to  the  effect  following  :  that,  from  complaints  .which  he  had  heard  as  proceeding 
from  you,  it  had  been  imputed  to  him  that  he  had  wounded  your  and  your  wife's 
feelings — that  this  was  distressing  to  his  feelings— and  that  he  could  not,  and  did  not, 
admit  the  truth  o&your  wife's  statements,  but  that  that  did  not  cause  .him  to  be  the 
less  pained  by  reason  of-  your  feelings  having  been  hurt  on  the  subject  ? 

He  said  it  was  painful  to  his  feelings,  but  did  not  deny  what  Mrs.  Beare 
said.  .  .  . 

8.  Was  nqt  his  answer  to  your  question  to  this  effect :  that  he  did  not  mean  to 
question  your  wife's  veracity,  for  that  persons  might  often  give  wrong  impressions 
of  facts"  without  intending  to  deceive? 

I  understood  Bishop  Onderdonk  to  say  that  he  did  not  deny  what  Mrs.  Beare 
stated,  but  that  she  misunderstood  or  misconstrued  his  motives'. 

9:  Was  not  your  question  in  these  words,  dr  to  this  effect:  do  you  question  my 
wife's  veracity  ? 

I  do  not  remember  putting  that  question. 


10.  Is  your  recollection  so  distinct  as  to  enable  you  to  say  with  certainty  that 
that  was  not  the  form  of  your  question  ] 

That  was  -not  the  form  of  the  question. 

11.  When  you  left  the  Bishop's  study,  did  not  you  and  he  shake  hands  together 
very  warmly  ? 

I  cannot  say  warmly  ;  we  shook  hands,  but  not  warmly. 

12.  During  the  17th  July,  1842,- and  after  your  wife  made  to  you  the  first  state- 
ment respecting  an  indignity  from  the  Bishop,  did  not  you  and  your  wife  freely 
converse  with  the  Bishop ! 

I  cannot  say  freely. 

13.  Did  your  wife  take  part  in  any  conversation  with  the  Bishop  during  dinner 
that  day  1 

I  do  not  remember  particularly — I  cannot  say  decidedly. 

14.  Is  it  your  belief  that  she  did,  or  did  not? 

I  think  it  probable  that  she  treated  the  Bishop  respectfully. 

15.  Do  you  not  know  that  she  did  1 
I  cannot  say  decidedly. 

16.  Can  you  not  say  whether  your  wife  conversed  with  the  Bishop  during  his 
stay  at  your  house  on  that  occasion  ? 

I  heard  him  conversing  with  Mrs.  Beare  in  my  study. 

17.  In  what  part  of  the  day  ? 

Just  after  the  morning  service,  and  before  dinner. 

18.  Was  it  after  or  before  her  communication  to  you  ? 
I  think  it  was  before. 

19.  What  was  said  in  that  conversation  ? 

Bishop  Onderdonk  said  he  was  hap'py  to  see  me  so  pleasantly  situated,  (he 
remarked  this  to  both  of  us — we  were  standing  together,)  and  happy  to  be  with 
us.  I  do  not  remember  any  further  conversation. 

20.  Did  your  wife  make  any  remark  at  that  time  1 
I  cannot  say  positively. 

.  21.  How  long  did  you  and  your  wife,  and  the  Bishop,  remain  in  the  study  at  the 
time  just  referred  to  ? 

.  A  short  time,  dinner  being  near  ready.  The  Bishop  went  to  an  upper  room 
to  wash  his  hands  ;  and  I  think  he  said  he  had  some  letters  from  his  son,  which  he 
wished  to  read. 

22.  On  your  return  from  Mr.  Franklin's  that  evening,  how  long  did  you  and 
your  wife  sit  up,  in  company  with  the  Bishop  ? 

From  ten  to  fifteen  minutes. 

23.  How  was  that  time  occupied  ? 

In  offering  up  family  prayer.  Mrs.  Beare  immediately  retired  then  to  her 
room,  and  the  Bishop  soon  went  to  his  room. 

24.  Did  you  request  the  Bishop  to  officiate  •  at  family  prayer,  and  what  reply 
did  he  make  ? 

I  offered  the  Bishop  the  prayer-book,  and  asked  him  to  officiate.  I  think  he 
simply  declined  at  that  time. 

25.  Did  he  not  say  that  it  was  his  rule,1  that  in  the  house  of  a  clergyman,  the 
clergyman  himself  should  perform  family  devotions  ? 

I  do  not  recollect  his  saying  that. 

26.  Did  you  not  know  that  that  was  his  rule  ? 

I  heard  him  make  a  remark  somewhat  similar  to  that,  when  I  asked  him  to  ask 
a  blessing  at  dinner. 

27.  Did  the  Bishop  shake  hands  with  you  and  your  wife  before  you  separated 
that  night  ? 

I  think  not  with  Mrs.  Beare,  but  with  myself,  I  think. 

28.  Did  your  wife  and  the  Bishop  converse  together  the  next  morning  at  break- 
fast ] 

I  remember  no  conversation  passing  between  them. 

29.  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood'  that  nothing  was  said  by  the  Bishop  to  your 
wife,  or  by  her  to  him,  during  breakfast-time  that  morning  ? 

I  remjember  of  no  conversation  passing  between  them. 


81 

30.  Did  any  conversation  pass  between  them  before  he  left  the  house  ? 
I  heard  no  conversation  between  them. 

31.  "When  the  Bishop  started  in  the  wagon  with  you,  did  he  take  leave  of  your 
wife,  and  if  so,  in  what  manner  ? 

He  did  take  leave  of  her,  and  took  her  hand.* 

32.  Was  your  mother  with  you  at  breakfast  that  morning  ? 
She  was  not. 

33.  Did  she  not  come  down  stairs  to  take  leave  of  the  Bishop  ? 
Xot  for  that  express  purpose. 

34.  Did  she  take  leave  or  the  Bishop  1 
I  cannot  say  from  personal  observation. 

35.  Was  the  Bishop  treated  by  yourself  and  wife,  while  at  your  house,  after  the 
morning  ride  on  Sunday,  until  he  left  your  house  the  next  day,  with  marked  coldness  * 

I  would  not  say  with  marked  coldness. 

36.  Did  your  wife  in  your  presence  ever,  after  the  occurrence  of  17th  of  July, 
1842,  converse  with  the  Bishop  1 

She  had  no  conversation — it  may  be  a  few  questions  were  proposed  at  table, 
respecting  the  dishes  before  her. 

37.  Was  her  manner  such  as  to  show  a  disinclination  to  converse  with  the 
Bishop,  in  every  instance  when  they  met,  after  the  occurrence  referred  to  1 " 

Yes,  sir ;  whenever  in  my  presence,  I  think  so. 

38.  Must  not  the  Bishop  have  observed  this  1 
'I  should  suppose  so. 

39.  Was  your  manner  to  him  reserved,  on  all  occasions,  when  you  met  him 
after  those  occurrences'? 

Not  cordial,  as  it  had  formerly  been. 

40.  Was  it  reserved,  so  as  to  be  apparent  ? 

I  wished  it  always  to  be  respectful,  as  to  my  Bishop. 

41.  The  question  is  repeated. 
I  should  suppose  so. 

.42.  On  the  Saturday  before  your  ordination  to  ihe  priesthood,  when  you  met  the 
Bishop  at  Dr.  Schroeder's,  did  you  invite  him  to  dine  with  you  the  next  day  1 
I  said  to  him,  "  Bishop  Onderdonk,  will  you  take  dinner  with  me  to-morrow  V 

43.  What  was  his  reply  ? 

I  think  he  said,  "  I  thank  you,  sir." 

44.  Did  he  not  say  that  he  had  an  invitation  to  dine  at  Mr.  Franklin's  ? 
.1  did  not  hear  him  say  so. 

45.  Did  you  not  urge  him.  to  dine  with  you,  in  consequence  of  some  excuse  he 
made  ? 

I  do  not  recollect  of  urging  him. 

46.  Did  he  not  make  some  excuse  which  induced  you  to  repeat  the  request  * 
I  really  cannot  remember  that  I  repeated  the  request.    . 

47.  Was  your  manner  cordial  in  giving  the  invitation,  or  was  it  formal  and  cold  * 
It  was  not  cordial,  but  respectful. 

48.  Was  your  wife  in  the  vestry-room  of  your  church  the  next  morning,  while 
you  and  the  Bishop  were  in  the  room,  before  service  ? 

I  think  not. 

49.  Was  she  after  service  1 
She  was.  , 

50.  Did  the  Bishop  shake  hands  with  you -and  her,  in  congratulation  upon  your 
ordination  that  morning  ? 

I  did  not  see  the  Bishop  shake  hands  with  my  wife.     I  think  he  did  with  me. 

51.  Was  your  ordination  that  day  the  subject  of  conversation  between  yourself, 
your  wife,  and  the  Bishop,  after  you  reached  home  ? 

I  do  not  remember  of  my  wife  engaging  in  any  conversation  with  the  Bishop. 

52.  Was  her  manner  at  dinner  that  day  so  reserved  as  to  be  apparent  ? 

It  was.  Shall  I  go  on  to  explain  1  I  wish  merely  to  remark  that  it  was  noticed 
by  Mrs.  Kip,  of  Brooklyn,  and  .Miss  Strong,  of  this  city.  [To  what  follows  "  it  was," 
in  this  answer,  objection  was  made  by  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  but  waived  ;  so 
the  answer  stood.] 

11 


82- 

53.  Did  your  wife  converse  with  the  Bishop  during  dinner,  the  day  of  the  ordi- 
nation t 

She  did  not.  » 

54.  Did  she  speak  to  him  at  all ! . 

She  asked  him  to  partake  of  the  dish  that  was  before  her. 

55.  Do  you  remember  in  what  way  the  communion  vessels  were  carried  to  the 
church  on  the  day  of  your  ordination  1 

I  carried  them  myself,  in  a  box,  in  which  the  vessels  are  always-taken. 

56.  Did  you  walk  or  ride,  to  the  church  1 
I  think  I  walked. 

57.  Who  usually  prepares  the  vessels, -linen,  &c.,  for  the  communion  at  the 
church  on  communion  days  * 

Sometimes  I,  and  sometimes  my  wife,  takes  them  frota  the  box.  They  are  pre- 
pared at  home,  wrapped  up  in  a  cloth,  and  taken  out  in  the  vestry-room.  I  then 
place  them  upon  the  table. 

58.  How  large  was  this  box  which  you  carried  to  church  that  morning  1 
It  is  a  tin  box,  about  fifteen  inches'  by  seven  or  nine.     I  can  easily  carry  it. 

59.  How  came  you  to  carry  that  box  as  you  walked  to  church  that  morning  ? 
I  often  do  so. 

60.  How  did  your  wife  go  to  church  that  morning  V 

She  went  in  a  wagon,  with  Mrs.  Kip,  Miss  Strong,  and  I  think  my  brother 
Thomas  Beare,  who  drove. 

61.  Was  the  night  of  the  17th  July,  1842,  a  light  or.a  dark  one  ? 
I  do  not  think  it  was  very  dark. 

62.  Was  it  moonlight  ? 
I  cannot  remember. 

63.  Was  it  light  enough  to  enable  you  to  distinguish  the  persons  of  your  wife 
and  Bishop  Onderdonk,  on  the  back  seat  of  the  wagon,  as  you  rode  home  1 

I  did  not  turn  around  to  see. 

64.  Did  you  converse  with  the  Bishop  on  your  way  home  that  night  ? 
I  did.  • 

65.  Did  you  not  during  the  conversation  direct  your  face  towards  him  ? 
I  think  not,  for  I  was  driving. 

66.  Was  the  communion  administered  in-  your'  church  on  the  17th  of  July,  1$42 1 
I  think  not.     It  was  the  day  of  confirmation  ;  I  belfeve-the  bishop  did  not' ad- 
minister the  communion.       • 

67.  Did  your  brother,  Thomas  Beare,  dine  with  you  on  the  day  of  your  ordination  1. 
He  did. 

68.  Is  he  the  brother  to  whom  ypu  mentioned,  on  the  18th  of  July,  1842,  the 
Bishop's  treatment  of  your  wife,  on  th,e  preceding  day  ? 

He  is. 

69.  Had  not  your  wife  told  you,  before !  your  visit  to  Mr.   Franklin's  with  the 
Bishop,  and  your  ride  home  with  him  that  night,  of  the   alleged   insult  of  the 
morning! 

She  had. 

70.  Have  you  at  any  time  since  the  occurrence  of  17th  July,  1842,  spoken  to 
any  person  in  very  friendly  terms 'of  the  Bishop  ^ 

I  know  of  no  one  to  whom  I  have  spoken  iri  that  way. 

71.  Have  you  spoken  in  that  way  to  the  -Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin*  , 
I  cannot  remember  it. 

72.  Or  to  the  Bishop's  sons,  Henry  and  William,  or  either  of  them  ? 

I  have  inquired  of  those  sons  respecting  the  Bishop^how  his  health  was. 

73.  Have  you  to  either  of  them  spoken  with  satisfaction  of  the  Bishop's  having 
dined  with  you  in  July,  1843  ? 

I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

74.  What  is  your  impression  as  to  the  fact  ? 
I  think  not. 

75.  Did  you  not,  in  a  conversation  with  one  of  the-  Bishop's  sons,  lay  particular 
stress  on  the  fact,  that  you  had  induced  the  Bishop  to  dine  with  you  in  July,  1843, 
notwithstanding  he  had  another  invitation  1 


.  .  83 

I  have  no  remembrance  of  such  a  thing. 

76.  When  did  you  first  make  a  memorandum,  or  statement  in  writing,  of  the 
transactions  to  which  you  have  "referred  in  your  testimony  ?     . 

'In  the  month  of  June,  1844,  during  the  General  Convention.  On  or  aboiit  the 
21st  of  October,  1844.  My  first  answer  of  June  was  a  lapsus  lingua. 

77.  Did  any  person,  and  if  so,  who,  apply  to  you  for  an  affidavit  1 
Yes,  «ir,  the  Rev.  James  C.  Richmond. 

7&.  When  did  he  so  apply !  .         '• 

On  the  Friday  night  previous  to  thei closing  of  the  General  Convention. 

79.  Did  he  apply  to  yon  for  your  wife's  affidavit  1 
He  did.  '  .  . 

80.  Where  did  he  make  this  application  f 
At  my  house,  Baysider  Long  Island. 

81.  Did  you  express  yourself,  upon  leaving  the  house  of  the  Bishop,  at  the  in- 
terview, in  the.  presence  .of  the  Rev.  gentlemen,  whom  you  have  named,,  or  after 
that  interview,  satisfied  with  the  explanation  'of  the  Bishop  ?. 

\  .Not  satisfied  with  the  apology  made  for  his  conduct,  but  because  he  said  he  did 
not  deny  what  Mrs.  Beare  had  stated. 

..  82.  Is  that  the  only  expression  you  have  made  in  relation  to  the  Bishop's  ex- 
planation 1 

I  cannot  call  to  mind  any  other. 

83.  Was  it  not  remarked  among  the  :Rev.  gentlemen  who  accompanied  you,  and 
assented  to  -by  you,  after  leaving  the  Bishop's  house,  that  the  matter  was  settled, 
and  there  was  an  end  of  it,  or'  to  that  effect  1 

'  I  think  that  Dr.  Muhlenberg  remarked,  "  We  will  say  no  more  about  this  matter." 

84.  Did  you  assent  to  that  remark  1  \ 

I  kept  perfectly  quiet ;  I  left  the  matter,  in  their  hands. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

.  39.  .  WhaJ  induced  you  to  ask  the  question  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  "Whether  he 
denied  the  statement  made  by  your  wife1?"  {Objected  to  and  withdrawn.) 

You  have  stated  in  your  cross-examination,  "  I  asked  "Bishop  Onderdonk  whether 
he  denied  the  facts  stated  by  my  wife  ;"  what  induced  you  to  ask  that  question  ? 

[This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  after 
argument  by  the  Counsel  on  both  sides,  the  objection  was  sustained;  the 
Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  N*ew  Jersey,  Western  New  York,  South  Caro- 
lina, Maryland,  and  Delaware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia ;  and  the 
Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary 
Diocese,  sustaining  the  objection ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Vermont,  Ken- 
tucky, Ohio,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  and  Louisiana,  dissenting.} 

'    By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop 'Doane. 

.1.  Did  you  go  to  the  Bishop,  after  Mrs.  Beare's  statement  to  you,  and  tell  him 
his  fault  T 
I  did  not.    . 
By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

2.  In  the  carriage  in  which  you  rode  with  the  Bishop,  how  near  was  you  to  the 
Bishop  ?  ... 

I  sat  on  the  right  haftd  of  the  front  seat,  and  the  Bishop  on  the  left  hand  of  the 
back  seat. 

3.  Did  your  wife  sit  behind  you  T 
She  did. 

4.  How  near  was  she  to  you  1 

1  cannot  state. exactly  the  distance. 

5.  Was  she  near  enough  to  toucli  you  with  her  hand  ? 
Yes,  sir. 

6.  What  is  the  age  of  your  wife  \ 
She  is  in  her  25th  year. 


.  7.  What  is  your  age  V 
I  was  born  Sept.  14,  1815. 

8.  How  long  had  you  been  married  at  the  time  of  this  transaction  ? 
I  was  married  on  the  8th  of  June,  preceding,  in  the  same  year. 
By  .Bishop  Ives. 

9.  Did  I  understand  you  rightly,  that  in  riding  with  the  Bishop  in  the  evening, 
after  having  heard  of  the  Bishop's  insult  to  your  wife,  in  the  morning,  you  did  not 
turn  your  face  around  during  that  ride  to  observe  him  ? 

I  do  not  particularly  remember  doing  so. 
By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

10.  When  the  Bishop  and  you  separated',  on  the  night  that  the  Bishop  spent  at 
your  house,  did  he  bid  you  "  Good-night  ]" 

He  did. 

11.  Did  he  bid  your  wife  "Good-night"  when  she  retired  to  her  room,  after 


prayers 


I  naturally  suppose  that  he  did. 

12.  Did  your  wife  bid  the  Bishop  "  Good-night  V 
I  cannot  say  positively- 

13.  Did  you  bid  the  Bishop  "  Good-night  V 
I  did. 

14.  Did  the  Bishop  administer  the  communion  in  your  church  at  any  time  after 
the  alleged  indignity  to  your  wife  1 

He  did. 

15.  Did  you  partake- of  it  at  his  hands  \ 
I  did. 

16.  Did  your  wife  partake  of  it  at  his  hands  ? 
She  did. " 

17.  Have  you  said  to  any  person,  since  the  alleged  indignity  to  your  wife,  that 
you  had  nothing  to  say,  or  bring,  against  Bishop  Onderdonk,  or  words  to  that 
effect  ? 

I  have  not  said  so. 
By  Bishop  Eastburn. 

18.  On  what  occasion  did  you  receive  the  holy  communion  at  the  hands  of  the 
Bishop,  after  this  occurrence '? 

At  the  time  of  my  ordination  to  the  priesthood. 
By  Bishop  Johns. 

19.  Was  that  the  only  occasion  1 

I  now  remember  no  other,  with  reference  either  to  my  wife  or  myself. 
By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

20.  While  you  were  in  Deacon's  orders  did  the   Bishop  ever  administer  the 
communion  for  you,  at  your  church  1 

I  do  not  remember  his  doing  it. 

The  Rev.  James  Milnor,  D.  D..  was  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the 
Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  and  sworn  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  commis- 
sioner. .  *  ,  ' 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  next  week,  besides  the  morning  session, 
on  every  day  except  Christmas  day  and  the  day  before  Christmas,  the 
Court  will  .hold  evening  sessions,  to  commence  at  7  o'clock. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  the  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


Monday,  Dec.  S3d,  1844,  ) 
liaif-past  9  A.  M.      \ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.     Present,  the   Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North 


85 

Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and 
Delaware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayer. 

A  letter  was  received  from  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York,  excusing 
his  absence  on  the  ground  of  illness. 

The  REV.  JAMES  MILNOR,  D.  D.,  having  been  sworn  on  Saturday  the 
21st,  was  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  and 
examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1 .  What  is  your  vocation  '\ 

A.  minister  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  Rector  of  St.  George's 
Church  in  this  city. 

2.  In  or  about  the  month  of  July,  1842,  did  you  visit  Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  this 
city,  at  his  house,  in  company  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  and  others ;  and  if 
so,  who  accompanied  you  on  that  occasion  T 

I  did,  in  company  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wainwright,  Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  and 
Rev.  Dr.  Higbee. 

3.  Did  you  see  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ;  and  if  so,  please  state  what  conver- 
sation was  had  between  you,  the  Bisbop,  and  the  other  gentlemen  1 

We  did,  in  his  study.  I  had  been  requested  to  introduce  to  the  Bishop's  atten- 
tion the  subject  on  which  we  called.  I  accordingly  stated  to  him  the  purpose  of 
our  visit ;  this  was  an  allegation  made  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare,  of  improper  famil- 
iarities on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  towards  his  wife.  I  told  him  that  these  were 
said  to  have  occurred  in  a  carriage,  in  which  he  rode  with  Mrs.  Beare,  in  the  first 
place  in  going  to  or  from  church  in  the  forenoon.  The  church  was,  as  I  under- 
stood, the  church  at  Little  Neck,  where  the  Bishop  confirmed  that  day.  That 
familiarities  of  a  still  more  objectionable  kind  had  been  offered  by  the  Bishop,  in 
the  evening,  in  riding  from  a  house  where  they  had  taken  tea — the  house  of  a  pa- 
rishioner, I  understood — to  Mr.  Beare's  house.  That  Mr.  Beare  had  communica- 
ted the  facts  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  who  committed  them  to  writing  ;  and  I 
think  I  requested  Dr.  Muhlenberg  to  read  the  statement ;  which  he  did.  In  my 
communication  to  the  Bishop,  I  stated  that  I  understood  from  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  that 
he  had  advised  Mr.  Beare  to  have  this  matter  brought  before  the  Bishop :  that 
he,  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  offered  to  come  down  to  the  city  on  the  business  ;  and  that 
I  had  been  waited  upon  by  Dr.  Wainwright  and  Dr.  Muhlenberg-.  and  requested  to 
accompany  them.  After  the  subject  had  been  presented  to  Bishop  Onderdonk,  he 
positively  denied  the  charge  :  and  expressed  his  astonishment,  that  a  lady  of  re- 
spectable character,  as  he  presumed  Mrs.  Beare  to  be,  should  make  such  asser- 
tions. Mr.  Beare  was  not  present,  nor  had  I  seen  him  since  the  alleged  occur- 
rence, nor  communicated  with  him  in  any  manner  with  reference  to  it.  Mrs.  Beare 
I  had  never  seen,  (nor  have  I  to  this  hour.)  The  Bishop  was  asked,  either  by 
myself  or  one  of  the  gentlemen,  I  do  not  recollect  which,  whether  he  would  be 
willing  to  see  Mr.  Beare.  He  said  he  had  no  objection.  We  then  took  our  leave 
of  the  Bishop. 

4.  What  was  the  manner  of  the  Bishop,  when  he  made  the  denial  of  the  state- 
ment, as  presented  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg  ? 

Perfectly  composed.   * 

5.  Did  he  or  not  seem  indignant  at  the  charge  ? 
His  expression,  as  already  stated,  indicated  that. 

6.  When  the  Bishop  expressed  a  willingness  to  see  Mr.  Beare,  was  any,  and 
what  remark,  made  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  as  to  seeing  Mr.  Beare? 

I  think  he  said  he  would  send  him  word  to  come  clown  the  next  day. 

7.  Did  you  call  upon  the  Bishop  again  on  this  subject ;  and  if  so,  when,  and  in 
company  with  whom  ? 

I  called  the  next  day,  in  company  with  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Beare,  Muhlenberg, 
and  Higbee — Dr.  Wainwright  having  sent  an  apology  for  his  absence,  on  account 
of  the  occurrence  of  a  domestic  affliction  since  the  dav  before. 


86 

8.  Before  you  went  the  second  time,  had  Mr.  Beare,  to  your  knowledge,  been 
informed  of  what  occurred  in  the  interview  the  day  before  1 

He  had. 

9.  Will  you  please  state,  according  to  the  best  of  your  recollection,  what  occur- 
red, and  what  was  said  by  the  Bishop,  and  the  other  gentlemen  present,  in  the 
second  interview  1 

We  found  the  Bishop  as  before,  in  his  study — his  front  study.  He  took  us  into 
the  back-room,  I  think,  and  closed  the  door.  He  addressed  himself  to  Mr.  Beare, 
and  expressed  his  regret  that  any  circumstances  should  have  occurred  to  offend 
the  feelings  of  Mrs.  Beare  ;  that  he  had  a  great  regard  for  him  and  his  wife,  and 
had  certainly  not  intended  to  wound  her  feelings.  Mr.  Beare  asked  him,  in  sub- 
stance, whether  he  denied  the  allegations  of  Mrs.  Beare,  to  which  he  answered  in 
the  negative  ;  but  said,  she  had  put  a  misconstruction  upon  what  had  occurred.  I  think 
it  right  to  state,  that  at  this  interview  the  Bishop  was  much  affected.  Tears  stood 
in  his  eyes  as  he  made  this  declaration,  and  Mr.  Beare  was  also  much  affected. 
The  protestations  of  the  Bishop  as  to  his  having  no  improper  intention,  were  re- 
peated several  times.  If  I  am  not  much  mistaken  in  my  recollection,  the  question 
was  more  than  once  put  by  Mr.  Beare  to  the  Bishop,  whether  he  meant  to  say  that 
Mrs.  Beare's  assertions  were  not  true  ;  to  which,  as  often  as  it  was  proposed, 
which  I  believe  was  more  than  once,  the  Bishop  answered  that  he  did  not ;  but 
that  she  had  misconstrued  his  motives.  There  does  not  any  thing  else  occur  to 
me  at  this  moment,  in  regard  to  the  conversation  or  occurrences  at  that  interview. 

10.  Did  you  say  any  thing,  and  what,  on  that  occasion,  to  Bishop  Onderdonk  * 

I  do  not  remember  that  I  did,  until  the  conclusion  of  the  conference  ;  but  I  may 
have  done  so. 

11.  What  did  you  say  at  the  conclusion  of  the  conference  ? 

I  cannot,  probably,  recollect  the  very  words  ;  but,  on  rising  to  retire,  as  I  believe, 
after  we  were  on  our  feet,  I  intimated  to  the  Bishop  that  I  hoped  what  had  occurred 
in  this  instance  would  put  him  on  his  guard  in  future ;  that  I  had  heard  rumors  of 
a  similar  kind.  To  which  the  Bishop  replied  in  words  of  this  import :  "  In  regard 
to  rumors  of  this  kind,  Doctor,  about  clergymen,  there  are  few  who  have  not,  at 
some  time,  had  occasion  to  encounter  them."  To  which  I  answered,  that  I  did 
not  know  how  that  might  be,  but,  in  regard  to  myself,  I  had  been  nearly  thirty 
years  in  the  ministry,  and  had  never  had  occasion  to  encounter  such  a  difficulty. 
That  is,  I  believe,  the  substance  of  what  occurred  before  we  left  the  presence  of 
the  Bishop. 

12.  Will  you  state,  as  well  as  you  remember,  what  the  allegations  of  improprie- 
ty, on  the  part  of  Bishop  Onderdonk  towards  Mrs.  Beare,  were,  as  they  were 
stated  by  yourself  to  the  Bishop  * 

I  think  it  right  to  state  as  preliminary  to  the  answer  to  this  question,  that  I  never 
made  a  note  in  writing  in  reference  to  any  thing  connected -with  this  subject ;  and 
that  I  forbore  to  speak  in  relation  to  it  until  it  became  a  subject  of  conversation  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  during  the  sitting  of  the  last  General  Convention.  I 
mention  this  to  account  for  any  inaccuracy  that  may  occur  in  what  I  shall  state  in 
regard  to  the  incidents  themselves.  The  substance,  I  think,  was  to  this  effect. 
That  in  the  morning  of  the  day  of  the  Confirmation  by  the  Bishop  at  the  Church  at 
Little  Neck,  Mrs.  Beare  rode  in  the  same  carriage  and  on  the  same  seat  with 
Bishop  Onderdonkx  either  in  going  to  or  from  church — I  do  not  recollect  which. 
That,  in  the  afternoon,  when  they  went  to  the  other  church  of  Mr.  Beare,  which  is, 
I  think,  at  Clintonville,  where  a  second  Confirmation  was  to  be  held,  Mrs.  Beare 
objected  to  riding  with  the  Bishop,  and  on  her  husband  inquiring  the  reason  why 
she  so  objected,  she  answered  that  she  did  not  like  to  ride  with  the  Bishop,  he  was 
too  familiar.  Accordingly,  as  I  understood  it,  she  did  not  ride  to  the  church  in 
the  afternoon  with  the  Bishop,  but  in  another  carriage  with  her  brother.  That, 
after  the  afternoon  service,  she  rode  in  the  same  carriage  with  her  brother,  to  the 
house  where  they  took  tea — if  I  remember  right,  a  Mr.  Franklin's.  That,  in  going 
home  in  the  evening,  from  this  house  to  Mr.  Beare's,  there  was  no  other  convey- 
ance for  Mrs.  Beare  but  her  husband's  carriage.  Accordingly,  she  rode  in  the 
same  carriage  and  on  the  same  seat  with  Bishop  Onderdonk,  to  Mr.  Beare's.  That 
in  the  course  of  that  ride  the  familiarities  complained  of  were  offered,  which  con- 


87 

aisted  in  the  Bishop's  sitting  very  close  to  her,  feeling  her  person  in  a  way  which  she 
considered  indecent,  and  at  length  putting  his.  hand  down  her  bosom — her  naked 
bosom,  I  think.  That  she  resented  these  advances,  so  far  as  to  put  his  hand  away 
from  her  bosom,  and  so  on.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was  stated  in  the  Bishop's 
presence,  the  reasons  why  she  did  not  make  any  outcry,  and  therefore  I  presume  I 
am  not  at  liberty  to  state  what  was  alleged  on  that  subject. 

13.  Did  you  leave  the  Bishop's  house  in  company  with  Dr.  -Muhlenberg,  Mr. 
Higbee,  and  Mr.  Beare  ? 

I  did. 

14.  Immediately  on  leaving  the  house,  was  any  opinion  expressed  by  Mr.  Hig- 
bee and  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  as  to  the  Bishdp's  acknowledgments  and  statements  on 
that  occasion  1 

[This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  the  ob- 
jection was  sustained  by  the  Court,  the  opinions  being  severally  taken,  and  unani- 
mous.] 

Cross-  Examination . 

,  1.  Were  the  statements  made  by  you  to  the  Bishop,  and  given  in  answer  to  the 
12th  direct  interrogatory,  made  upon  the  occasion  of  your  first  visit  to  the  Bishop, 
in  company  with  the  Rev.  Drs.  Wainwright,  Muhlenberg,  and  Higbee  1 
I  believe  they  were. 

2.  Have  you  a  distinct  recollection  of  the  particulars  of  that  interview,  or' have 
you  intended  to  give  the  substance  of  it  merely  1 

As  I  have  already  mentioned,  having  never  made  any  memorandum  on  this  sub- 
ject, I  can  at  this  distance  of  time  only  state  the  substance  of  what  passed ;  but  I 
have  a  distinct  recollection,  that  I  left  the  Bishop's  house  under  the  impression 
that  he  positively  denied  the  charge.  It  was  that  impression,  made  during  the 
conversation,  that  induced  me  to  propose  that  Mr.  Beare  should  be  confronted 
with  the  Bishop. 

3.  Was  this  denial  made  by  the  Bishop  after  your  narration  of  the  charge  made 
against  him  ] 

I  think  it  was. 

4.  Did  not  the  Bishop  at  that  interview  say  that  he  was  certain  that  if  he  could 
see  Mr.  Beare,  and  have  a  conversation  with  him,  he  could  satisfy  him  that  his 
wife  must  have  been  mistaken,  and  express  a  hope  that  he  would  see  Mr.  Beare 
the  next  day,  at  the  consecration  of  Christ  Church,  Brooklyn  1     » 

I  think  I  recollect  something  of  the  kind  stated  in  the  first  part  of  the  question  ; 
the  latter  I  do  not  remember. 

5.  Are  you  certain  that  Dr.  Muhlenberg  read  the  statement  on  that  occasion,  to 
which  you  have  referred  in  your  direct  examination  1 

That  is  my  impression. 

6.  Have  you  a  distinct  recollection  that  the  Bishop's  denial  related  to  the  facts, 
and  not  to  the  impressions  given  by  Mrs.  Beare  1 

I  do  not  know  that  I  could  make  that  distinction.  It  appeared  to  me  like  a  posi- 
tive denial  of  the  whole  thing. 

7.  Do  you  recollect  the  form  of  expression  in  which  that  denial  'was  made  ? 

He  said  the  charge  was  utterly  unfounded.  I  mentioned  in  my  direct  examina- 
tion the  same  thing. 

8.  Did  he,  in  making  this  general  denial,  refer  to  the  whole  statement  you  had 
made  ? 

I  presumed  so  at  the  time.  When  I  so  speak,  I  refer  only  to  the  statement  of 
charges  of  impropriety  against  him. 

9.  Was  any  thing  said  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg  at  the  first  interview,  on  the  au- 
thority of   Mr.   Beare,  respecting   the   Bishop's  deportment  at  Mr.    Franklin's 
towards  Miss  Franklin,  wfio  was  engaged  to  be  married  to  Mr.  Smythe,  a  gentle- 
man present  at  Mr.  Franklin's  at  the  time  1     If  so,  please  state  what  it  was. 

I  recollect  no  such  circumstance: 

10.  Was  any  reference  made,  either  at  the  first  or  second  interview,  to  the 
Bishop's  having  put  his  arm  around  the  waist  of  Mrs.  Beare,  or  his  having  kissed 
her  at  Mr.  Beare's  house,  in  the  interval  between  the  morning  and  afternoon  ser- 
vice, on  the  day  of  the  alleged  improprieties'? 


88 

I  recollect  having  heard  such  a  circumstance,  but  do  not  remember  whether  it 
was  mentioned  in  either  of  our  conferences  with  the  Bishop  or  not. 

11.  You  have  stated  in   your  direct  examination  that  Mr.  Beare  asked  the 
Bishop,  in  substance,  whether  he  denied  the  allegations  of  Mrs.  Beare  ;  to  which 
the  Bishop  answered  in  the  negative,  but  said  that  she  had  put  a  misconstruction 
upon  what  had  occurred ;  do  you  mean  in  that  answer  to  give  the  words  which 
were  used  by  the  parties,  or  their  substance,  as  you  now  recollect  them  1 

The  latter. 

12.  May  not  the  Bishop  have  said,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Beare's  question,  that  he 
did  not  mean  to  charge  Mrs.  Beare  with  intentional  falsehood  T 

I  believe  the  Bishop  did  say  so. 

13.  Did  not  the  Bishop  refer  to  Mrs.  Beare's  excitement  and  agitation,  as  a  rea- 
son why  she  might,  though  unconsciously,  have  made  erroneous  statements ! 

I  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  thing. 

14.  Did  you,  or  any  of  the  other  Rev.  gentlemen  present,  take  part  in  the  con- 
versation between  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Beare  1 

I  do  not  remember  whether  we  did  or  not. 

15.  Do  you  remember  that  at  the  close  of  the  conversation,  and  as  the  Bishop 
and  Mr.  Beare  were  separating,  they  clasped  each  other  warmly,  by  the  hand,  and 
parted  from  each  other  with  emotion. 

I  remember  that  the  Bishop  offered  his  hand  to  Mr.  Beare,  and  that  Mr.  Beare 
accepted  it ;  and  that  the  Bishop  expressed  his  sorrow,  that  any  thing  should  have 
occurred  to  offend  the  feelings  of  Mrs.  Beare  ;  and  I  think  he  added,  that  if  any 
further  apology  to  Mrs.  Beare  was  necessary,  he  was  ready  to  make  it.  There 
was  emotion  manifested,  both  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Beare. 

16.  Did  not  Mr.  Beare  say  to  the  Bishop  that  he  was  satisfied,  and  trusted  his 
wife  would  be  ? 

I  have  no  recollection  that  he  did. 

17.  May  not  such  a  remark  have  been  made  at  the  time  they  separated,  and 
you  have  forgotten  it  ] 

I  think,  if  it  had  been,  I  should  have  remembered  it ;  because  there  were  sub- 
sequent circumstances  inconsistent  with  it.  [Here  a  discussion  arose  before  the 
Court.]  Since  this  matter  has  been  under  discussion,  a  circumstance  has  occur- 
red to  me  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beare's  expression  of  satisfaction,  which  I  think  was 
mentioned  in  the  presence  of  the  Bishop.  This  was,  that  Mr.  Beare  stated  that 
he  was  satisfied  with  the  Bishop's  withdrawal  of  his  denial  of  Mrs.  Beare's  alle- 
gations ;  on  which  subject  Mr.  Beare  had,  all  along,  expressed  the  greatest  sensi- 
bility. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

15.  You  were  asked  on  the  cross-examination, "  Are  you  certain  that  Dr.  Muhlen- 
berg,  on  that  occasion  to  which  you  have  referred  in  your  direct  examination, 
read  the  statement  made  by  him  of  the  charges  against  the  Bishop  by  Mr.  Beare  ;" 
I  will  ask,  did  you  hear  that  statement  read  more  than  once  1 

If  I  am  wrong  in  my  recollection  of  Dr.  Muhlenberg  having  read  it  before  the 
Bishop,  then  I  have  heard  it  but  once,  which  was  before  we  went  there. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Johns. 

The  proposal  to  send  for  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare  to  confront  him  with  the 
Bishop — did  that  proposal  originate  with  the  Bishop,  or  with  the  gentlemen  who 
waited  upon  him  1 

I  think  I  proposed  it. 

Cross- Examination  resumed. 

18.  You  said  upon  your  direct  examination,  that  the   Bishop  expressed  a  wil- 
lingness to  see  Mr.  Beare  ;  was  not  that  expression  made  promptly  and  unhesi- 
tatingly, when  you  made  the  suggestion  referred  to  in  the  last  preceding  answer  ? 

It  was. 


89 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  proposed  that  two  members  of  the 
Court  assist  in  the  examination  of  Miss  Ann  Wilson  by  the  Commissary 
already  appointed. 

An  agreement  of  the  Counsel  in  the  case  to  that  effect  was  read  and 
adopted,  with  the  insertion  of  the  names  of  the  Bishops  of  North  Carolina 
and  Ohio,  in  the  following  form,  viz : 

It  is  agreed,  That  the  examination  of  the  witness  Miss  Ann  Wilson,  be 
conducted  before  the  Commissary  already  appointed,  by  and  in  the  pres- 
ence and  under  the  direction  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishops  Ives  and  Mcllvaine  ; 
the  presence  of  Counsel,  and  the  use  of  written  interrogatories  furnished 
by  the  parties,  being  dispensed  with. 

Other  witnesses,  whose  testimony  was  desired  by  the  Counsel  for  the 
Presentment,  not  being  in  attendance, 

The  Court  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WIIITTINGHAM,  Clerk, 


Tuesday,  December  24£/*,  1844,  ) 
half -past  9  o'clock,  A.  M.      \ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to- adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky, 
Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  .Diocese,  Louisiana, 
South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South 
Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  Rev.  Wm.  A.  Muhlenberg,  D.  D.,  being  called  as  a  witness  by 
the  Counsel  for  the  Presentment ; 

The  Rev.  John  F.  Schroeder,  D.  D.,  the  Rev.  Frederick  J.  Goodwin, 
and  the  Rev.  Henry  W.  Swcetzer,  being  called  as  witnesses  by  the  Coun- 
sel for  the  Respondent,  were  severally  sworn  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  the 
commissioner. 

The  REV.  WILLIAM  AUGUSTUS  MUHLENBERG,  D.  D.,  was  called  as  a  wit- 
ness by  Counsel  for  Presentment,  and  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1 .  What  is  your  vocation  1 
A  clergyman. 

2.  In  or  about  the  month  of  July,  1842,  did  you  visit  Bishop  Onderdonk  of  this 
city,  ;it  his  house,  in  company  with  Rev.  Dr.  Milnor  and  others ;  and  if  PO,  who 
accompanied  you  on  that  occasion  ? 

I  did,  accompanied  by  Dr.  Milnor,  Dr.  Higbee,  and  Dr.  Waimvright. 

3.  Did  you  see  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion — have  any  conversation  with  him  ; 
and  if  you  did,  please  state  fully  and  in  detail'  what  that  conversation  was,  as  well 
between  you  and  the  Bishop,  as  all  the  other  conversation  that  occurred  on  that 
occasion  in  the  presence  and  hearing  of  the  Bishop  ? 

I  saw  the  Bishop  ;  but  at  this  distance  of  time  I  cannot  be  sure  of  the  precise 
words  that  were  used  by  either  party  on  that  occasion.  According  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection,  what  passed  was  in  substance  as  follows  : — After  Dr.  Milnor  had 
stated  the  object  of  the  interview,  I  related  to  the  Bishop  what  I  had  received 
from  Mr.  Beare  a  few  days  previous,  concerning  certain  liberties  which  Mr.  Beare 
said  the  Bishop  had  taken  with  his  wife.  I  entered  into  the  particulars  from  notea 

12 


90 

which  I  took  when  Mr.  Beare  related  the  circumstances  to  me.  (I  have  not  those 
notes — they  have  been  destroyed  ;  they  were  mere  catch-words,  and  perfectly  un- 
intelligible to  any  one  besides  myself.)  The  Bishop  denied  each  of  the  particu- 
lars as  I  stated  them  ;  I  mean  the  particulars  of  the  offences  alleged.  The  Bishop 
said,  that  if  he  saw  Mr.  Beare  he  thought  the  thing  could  be  explained,  or  words 
to  that -effect.  I  replied,  I  will  bring  Mr.  Beare.  The  Bishop  said  he  would  be 
happy  to  see  him ;  and  we  made  an  appointment  to  meet  on  the  morrow. 

4.  What  were  the  alleged  offences,  as  you  stated  them  to  the  Bishop  ? 

The  Bishop  had  kissed  Mrs.  Beare ;  that  he  had  put  his  hand  on  her  naked  bo- 
som ;  and  on  her  body  below  the  corset-bone,  outside  of  her  dress. 

5.  Did  you  state  the  particulars  to  the  Bishop  fully,  as  they  had  been  stated  to 
you  by  Mr.  Beare  ? 

I  did. 

6.  Did  the  Bishop  deny  those  particulars  in  general,  or  in  particular1? 

He  denied  them  one  by  one,  as  I  proceeded,  except  that  of  kissing  Mrs.  Beare. 

7.  What  was  the  manner  of  the  Bishop  when  he  made  these  denials  ? 
It  seemed  to  be  that  of  great  astonishment. 

.  8.  Did  you  call  the  next  day  ;  and  if  so,  who  accompanied  you  ? 
I  did,  in  company  with  Dr.  Milnor,  Dr.  Higbee,  and  Mr.  Beare. 

9.  Did  you  .see  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion,  and  have  any  conversation  with 
him ;  and  if  so,  please  state  all  the  conversation  during  the  interview,  and  in  the 
Bishop's  presence,  as  well  between  you  and  the  Bishop,  as  all  the  other  conversa- 
tion'? 

I  saw  the  Bishop,  and  almost  all  that  was  said  came  from  the  Bishop  himself. 
He  b.egan  with  saying  how  much  he  was  grieved  that  any  thing  had  occurred  at 
his  visit  to  Mr.  Beare's  that  had  given  Mr.  Beare  or  his  wife  any  pain.  He  re- 
peated this  in  a  variety  of  language,  expressive  of  his  deep  regret  for  having 
wounded  Mr.  Beare's  feelings:  Mr.  Beare  asked  the  Bishop,  whether  he  denied 
the  truth  of  the  things  which  I  had  stated  the  day  previous.  He  said,  no  ;  but  Mrs. 
Beare  misunderstood  me,  or  words  to  that  effect.  The  Bishop  said  he  had  a  warm 
and  affectionate  manner,  which  might  sometimes  be  misconstrued.  After  a  while, 
Mr.  Beare  repeated  the  question  whether  the  Bishop  meant  to  deny  Mrs.  Beare's 
statements,  as  given  by  me.  The  Bishop  again  said,  no,  and  went  on  to  explain 
how  Mrs.  Beare  might  be  mistaken. 

10.  Did  he  explain  putting  his  hand  on  her  naked  bosom  ;  and  if  so,  how  1 

No  ;  he  referred  to  no  particulars  in  any  of  his- explanations,  I  think.  He  dwelt 
upon  his  intentions  to  do  nothing  wro.ng.  He  frequently  assured  Mr.  Beare  to  that 
effect ;  and  apologized  to  him  if  he  had  done  any  thing  which  had  offended  Mr.  or 
Mrs.  Beare..  That  was  the  substance  of  what  passed.  The  interview  lasted  about 
half  an  hour. 

11.  What  was  the  Bishop's  manner  during  this  second  interview — was  he  cajm, 
or  agitated  ? 

He  seemed  much  agitated,  and  said  he  had  passed  a  very  unhappy  night. 

12.  Did  Dr.  Milnor  say  any  thing  to  the  Bishop,  and  what,  at  the  close  of  that 
conversation  ? 

At  the  close  of  one  of  the  interviews,  I  do  not  recollect  which,  in  the  way  of 
respectful  admonition,  I  should  say,  on  the  importance  of  great  prudence  and  cir- 
cumspection OH  the  part  of  the  Bishop,  as  evil  reports  of  the  like  'nature  had  got 
abroad.     That,  I  think,  was  the  import  of  what  Dr.  Milnor  said. 
.  13.  What  did  the  Bishop  say  in  reply  to  that  '\ 

That  all  men' in. public  life  were  more  or  less  subject  to  evil  report,  or  something 
to  that  effect. 

.  14.  Was  any. thing  said  in  the  hearing  of  the  Bishop,  as  to  his  explanations, 
whether  satisfactory  or  not!  .  : 

T  cannot  speak  positively  that  any  thing  was  said  in  the  presence  of  the  Bishop. 
The  Bishop  having  several  times  apologized  to  Mr.  Beare,  asked  whether  he  could 
do  any  thing  more. 

Cross-Examination. 

1,  When  the  Bishop,  after  having  made  the  apologies  you  have  spoken  of,  asked 


.  91 

if  he  could  do  any  thing  more,  was  any  thing  said  in  reply  to  that  question  by  any- 
body, and  by  whom ! 

I  think  Mr.  Beare  said  that  he  was  satisfied.  My  recollection  is  indistinct;  I 
was  so  engrossed  with  my  own  feelings,  that  I  cannot  now  .testify  precisely  what 
was  said  by  either  party. 

2.  I  want  TOO,  if  you  can,  to  try  and  recollect  the  words  used  by  the  Bishop  in 
answer  to  the  question  pat  to  him  by  Mr.  Beare,  whether  he  denied  what  Mrs. 
Beare  said.     Did  not  the  Bishop  say,  "  I  do  pot  mean  to  question  the  truth  of  ve- 
racity of  Mrs.  Beare,  but  she  has  misconstrued  or  misunderstood  what  took 
place  P  .         ' 

As  far  as  I  can  recollect,  the  Bishop's  words  were,  "  No,  my  dear-brother,  I  do 
not  deny  Mrs.  Beare's  word  ;  but  I  think  she  misunderstood  inc." 

3.  At  this  second  interview  at  the  Bishop's,  were  the  particulars  of  the  charges, 
as  had  been  stated  by  you  at  the  first  meeting,  repeated  by  anybody  ? 

They  were  not. 

4.  Do  you  recollect,- at  the  first  interview  at  the  Bishop's  of  which  yon  have 
spoken,  stating  any  thing,  of  Mr.  Beare  having  stated  to  yon,  impropriety  of  .con- 
duct on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  with  a  Miss  Franklin ! 

I  do  not  recollect.  Upon  further  reflection  L  think  I  did,  and  that  it  was  among 
the  notes  which  I  had  taken  on  the  statement  of  Mr.  Beare,  I  recollect  it  dis- 
tinctly now  that  it  is  brought  to  my  mind. 

5.  Do  you  recollect  what  the  statement  referring  to  Miss  Franklin  was  * 

I  cannot  speak  with  respect  to  improprieties,  but  I  understock  that  Mr.  Smythe 
was  not  willing  that  Miss  Franklin  should  go  up  and  take  a  seat  upon  a  tree  be- 
side  the  Bishop. 

6.  Do  you  recollect  any  thing  being  said  at  that  first  interview  in  connection 
with  the  reference  to  Miss  Franklin,  that  the  Bishop's  conduct  towards  her  had 
been  such  as  very  much  to  hurt  the  feelings  of  Mr.  Smythe,  or  words  to  that  effect  j 

I  can  only  say,  I  have  no  distinct  recollection.  . 

7.  When  the  Bishop  answered  the  question  put  to  him  by  Mr.  Beare, -whether 
he  denied  what  Mrs.  Beare  had  said,  was  there  any  thing  to  induce  you  to  believe 
at  that  time  that  the  Bishop  referred  to  the  particular  charges  which  had  bees 
made  against  him,  or  generally  to  any  charge  being  made  against  his  purity  or 
morality ! 

I  thought  he  referred  to  those  particular  statements.. 

8.  You  have   said  in  your,  direct  examination  that  Mr.  Beare's  question  to  (he 
Bishop  was,  whether  he  meant  to  deny  Mrs.  Beare's  statements,  as  mentioned,  by 
you  the  day  before  ;  I  want  to  know-  whether  yon  mean  to  be  positive  about  the 
latter  part,  or  whether  you  merely  inferred  that  the  statement  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Beare,  was  the  one  made  by  you  the  day  before  ? 

I  am  positive  that  Mr.  Beare's  question  referred  to  the  statement  I  had  made 
the  day  before.  He  said  so ;  his  language  was,."  Bishop,  do  you  deny  what  was 
stated  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  yesterday  1"  or  words  to  that  effect. 

By  the  Court' 

By  Bishop  Mcllvaine.  •       • 

1 .  When  you  say  that  Mr.  Beare  expressed  himself  satisfied  &  the  conclusion 
of  the  interview,  did  you  understand  him  as  meaning,  that 'he  was  satisfied  with  : 
the  Bishop's  apology,  or  with  his  having  declared  that  he-. did  not    deny -Mrs. 
Beare's  statements  ? 


I  was  not. 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

3.  You  have  stated  that  in  'the  second  interview  the  Bishop  appeaiAmuch  agi- 
tated, and  began  with  words  designed  to  sooth  Mr.  Beare  :  was  th^tany  thing 
in  Mr.  Beare's  manner  to  produce  such  feeling  in  the  Bishop,  and  to^ttd  to.  such 
language  ?  .  > 

I  do  not  recollect  that  there  was.. 


n  r>         •     -L.-  j 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

9.  Do  you  remember  whether  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Beare,  upon  meeting  at  that 
interview,  shook  hands  together ;  and  whether  there  was  or  was  not  mutual  emo- 
tion at  the  time  1 

I  do  not  remember.     I  think  the  Bishop  shook  hands  with  us  all. 

10.  Did  he  also  shake  hands  with  you  all,  including  Mr.  Beare,  at  parting  1 

I  think  he  shook  hands  with  us  all ;  but  I  have  already,  said,  I  felt  so  badly  my- 
self, I  cannot  say  what  took  place  with  others. 

The  evidence  for  the  Presentment  was  here  closed,  with  the  exception  of 
that  of  Miss  Ann  Wilson,  to  be  presented  in  writing. 


9.3 


The  REV.  JOHN  FREDERICK  SCHROEDER,  D.  D.,  was  then  called  as  a 
witness  b  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

I.  Wlsat  is  your  occupation  and  place  of  residence  ? 
I  am  a  Presbyter '.of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  and  reside  in  Flushing. 
•2.  Ar?  yon  acquainted  with  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare  and  his  wife  ! 
I  am. 

3.  Htve  yon  any  recollection  of  seeing  Mr.  Beare  and  his  wife  in  company 
with  Bishop  Onderdonk,  any  time  in  the  year  1843  ! 

I  hare. 

4.  At  what  place  did  you  then  see  them  so  in  company,  and  at  what  time  of  the 
year? 

In  the  middle  of  July,  at  St.  Ann's  Hall,  Flashing,  and  at  Little  Neck,  near 
Flushing. 

5.  Did  any.  and  what,  conversation  take  place  between  Mr.  Beare,  or  his  wife, 
or  both  ef  them,  with  the  Bishop,  at  those  times ;  if  so,  state  as  near  as  you  can 
recollect  what  passed  in  that  conversation  ?' 

At  Flushiilg,' the  only  topic  of  conversation  that  I  remember,  was  the  dining  of 
the-Bishop  on  the  next  day  at  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare's.  In  my  house  at  Flushing,  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Beare  were  presented  to  the  Bishop  by  me  ;  and  during  that  interview 
the  request  was  made  by  Mr.  Beare,  that  the  Bishop  would  dine  with  him  the  next 
day.  The  Bishop  plead  a  previous  engagement.  The  Rev.  M*.  Beare  urged, 
and  the  Bishop  then  consented.  At  Little  Neck,  on  the  next  day,  after  the  ordi- 
nation of  the  Tic  v.  Mr.  Beare,  in  the  vestry-room  of  his  church,  I  beard  the  Bish- 
op congratulate  Mrs.-  Beare,  on  the  advancement  of  her  husband  to  the  Priesthood ; 
to  which  -she  replied  with  evident  satisfaction.  I  remember  no  other  conversation. 

6.  At  the  meeting  at  your  house,  between  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare. 
do  you  recollect  whether  they  shook  hands  together,  and  appeared  glad  to  see  the 
Bishop ! 

I  do 'not  remember  that  they  shook  hands;  but  I  expected,  and  thought  I  ob- 
served, great  cordiality  on  the  part  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare. 

7.  Have  you  any  recollection  whether  Mrs.  Beare  did  or  did  not  join  her  hus- 
band in  urging  the  Bishop  to  dine  with  them  the  next  day  \ 

I  hav^not. 

8.  Did  you  perceive  in  either  of  those  interviews,  in  your  own  house,  or  at  the 
church  at  Little  Neck,  any  thing  like  coldness  towards  the  Bishop,  on  the  part 
either  of  Mr  or  Mrs.  Beare  ? 

I  did  not. 

!J.  Du  you  remember  at  what  particular  place  in  your  house  it  was,  that  this  in- 
ritation  to  dinner  was  given  ? 
In  the  front  parlor  of  that  part  of  the  house  called  the  Rectory. 

Cross-  Examination. 

1 .  Is  there  any  thing,  and  what,  that  impressed  the  conversations  to  whit h  yon 
have  alf'nded  on  your  memory  \ 

There  is  :  a  conversation  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare  and  his  wife/JH  a  recur- 
rence tc  observations  made  by  myself  at  the  time  to  others. 

;?.  When  and  where  was  the  conversation  referred  to,  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  1 

At  his  honse,  three  weeks  ago. 

3.  For  what  purpose  did  you  go  to  his  bouse  ? 


94 

.To  refresh  my  memory,  and  aid  him  in  refreshing  his,  on  the  subject  of  Charges 
brought  against  the  Bishop.      . 

4.  Who  requested  you  to  go  to  his  house  V  .•        . 
No"  one. 

5.  Had  yoH,  prior  to  going  to  his  housf,  mentioned  your  knowledge  of  these 
conversations  to  the.Bishop  1 

I  had  not.  •    :    • 

6.  Had  you  mentioned  it  to  any  other  person  or  persons,  and  to  whom  1 
To-several  members  of  my  family,  and  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin.     I  believe  to 

•no  other.  . 

7.  How  came  you  tp  mention  it  to  your"  family  V 

'.    .       From  hearing  that  Mr.  Beare' and  his  wife  were  acting  in  a  manner  which  1 
thought  fn9on6istent  with  their  past  conduct^  since  alleged  difficulties. 

8.  How  came  you  to  mention  it  to  Mr.  Goodwin  1  .  • 
Because  he  was  present  at  my  house,  on  the  day  when  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  were 

there,  and  i  thought  that  he  might  have  observed,  what  I  did  not. 

9.  Where  was  Mr.  'Goodwin  wheu  you  made  this  communication  to  him  1 
At. No;.  20  John-street,  in  this  city.  , 

•  .    ,10.  JFbf  what  purpose  did  you.  go  to  see.  Mr!  Goodwin,  when  you  mentioned  it 

to  him?  ••''•.' 

I*met  him  casually. ; 

-   11.  Is/20  John-street  a. private  house  ! 

No — it  ie  the  depository  of  the  Slmd.ay-Schobl  Union  t)f  our  Church. 
12.  Who  commenced  the1  conversation  between  you  and  Mr.  Goodwin,  relative 
'to  Mr..  Fearel;  '   :  ••' 

.'   .  /  • .  I  th\nk  that /-did.      .  . 

IS.  Have'  you  any  doubt  that  you  did  ! 
:   .-•-.'  My  .answer  implies  that,  of  course.     I  am  not  certain,  but  I  think  so. 

14.  Before- seeing  JM.  Goodwin,  as  you  have  stated,  had  you  seen,  the  Bishop 
'  .,\-bn  this  subject,  or  anyone  on  his  behalf! 

I  had  not  seen  the  Bishop,  nor  any  one  on  his  behalf.. 

15.  Was  you  in  doubt  as  to  the  conversations,  testified  to  by  you,  wkh  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Beare^  before  you  visited  them  three  weeks  ago,  as  stated  ?. 

I  was  not.  ••'.  i     .'-•':..-• 

' .  • ;  i.  >l  *  AQ.  Why,  then,  did  -you:  gay  that  you  visited  theih  for  the  purpose  of  refreshing 
*•• ::     y°ur  •recollection  T  '  •     ',  \  •/'•...-' 

To  refresh  my  recollection  as  to  facts,  anij  not 'words,  ' 
-.    ,'..'.;-.."'17.  Whatfactsf  ;'/  "  •-  •• 

Their  apparent  cordiality,  especially  Mrs;  Beare's  accepting  my  inyitatkiin  to  be 
:y*:/%,  presented  to  the  Bishop.  ... 

•  18,  Had;  you  any  flonbt  of  these  facts  before  you  visited  them.? 
'!.  •*'  '    /  .  I  had  .rial,  myself,  but  heard  they  had.  • 

19.  From'  whom  did  you  hear  that  they  had  ?          ,       . 

•'.  From  tnaiiy  persons,  xvho~ spoke  of  affidavits  which  tbey  had  made. 

'  '    \  .       20.  Name  the  persons  !  '   •     . 

'..v... ;  •     I  remember  Mr,  TKomas,C.  Butler,  at  20-  John-street.   .Of  others  I  cannot 
.'   speak  by.name:   ..'.'•'•;"  i'^-  .    ' 

21.  Do  yoa  mean  Ufittyou  dp  not  recollect  the  names  of  others  '•? 
'  v     : .    .      It  was  a  topic  of  such  common  remark,  th'at'I  cannot  specify. 

22.  Can  .you  specify  no  name,  but  that  of  Mr.  Butler  ? 
<     .  ,        I  think  not.  '•         .  • 

'•}  23".  JDid  yoii  inform  Mr.- and  Mrs.  Beirer'when  you  yisijte'd.  th«m,  three  weeks 
ago,  of  the  object  of  your  visit  ?  .    ',  .-.•.'' 

•'V,-    Tdid.  .  '    *  ' 

24.  What  did  you  say- to  them,  in  Teepect  to  the  object  of  yo'nr  visit  \    State 
particularly.  "  '   .  '.  .     ,'•    »' 

I  stated.tiiat  I  called  ta  ascertain,  whether  they  remembered  what  /  d^d. 

25.  Were  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  both  present^  ; 

They -were.       ,      •.  •     ' 

86.  Was  any. other  person  present,  ind  who! 


95 

My  soft,  Johtt  Frederick,  a  lad  of  seventeen. 

27.  Did  you  state  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Bear-e  why  you  wished  to  obtain  information 
from  them,  such  as  you  have  referred  to  1 

I  did. 

28.  What  did  you  say  in  reference  to  that  1 
That  I  wished  our  testimony  to  be  alike. 

29.  Did  you  say,  then,  that  you  was  going  to  be  a  witness  in  this  matter  ? 
I  did  not. 

30.  Had  you  been  subpoenaed  as  a  witness  * 
I  had  not. 

31.  Had  you  been  requested  to  attend  by  anybody,  and  by  whom,  as  a  witness  1 
.     I  had  not,  at  that  time. 

32.  Why,  then,  was  you  desirous  of  knowing  whether  your  testimony  and  Mr: 
and  Mrs.  Scare's  would  agree  ? 

I  thought  their  conduct  since  they  were  at  my  house,  as  stated,  to  be  inconsistent 
with  their  conduct- at  that  time  ;  and  I  thought  that  I  might  possibly  be  summoned 
as  a  witness.' 

33.  Did  you  say  so  to  Mr.  Beare  1 

I  did.  , 

34.  Did  you,  or  not,  tell  Mr.  Beare  that  you  came  to  visit  him  as  his  friend  ? 

I  did  n,ot  in  words,  but  have  often  visited  him  as  his  friend,  since  his  residence 
at  Little  Neck.  • 

35.  Did  you  ever  tell  any  .person,  and  what  person,  the  conversation  which  oc- 
curred between  you  and  Mr.  Beare,  on  the  visit  last  referred  to  ? 

I  have  told  members  of  my  own  family,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin,  and  the 
Counsel,  last  evening.  I  told  the  Bishop  last  night,  and  once  before,  since  my  in- 
terview with  Mr.  Beare,*which  was  .the  first  time  I  spoke  with  the  Bishop  on  the 
subject — which  are  the  only  times  I  have  spoken  with  the  Bishop  on  the  subject. 

36.  How  long  after  you  visited  Mr.  Beare  did  you  communicate  to  the  Bishop 
the  first  time,  the  conversation  which  then  took  place"? 

It  was  during  the  same  week. 

37.  On  what  day  of  the  week  was  the  visit  made  to  Mr.  Beare  ? 
On  Wednesday,  at  noon. 

38.  On  what  day  did  you  make  the  communication  to  the  Bishpp  1 
On  Thursday  or  Friday  of  the  same  week: 

39.  Where 'was  the  Bishep  when  you  made  the  communication  to  him  ? 
In  his  study. 

40.  Did  you  come  to  the  city  on  purpose  to  make  that  communication  ? 
I  did  not. 

41.  Did  you  go- to  visit  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  for  the  purpose  of  getting  state- 
ments from  them,  to  be  communicated  to  Bishop  .Onderdonk  1 

I  did  not. 

42:  At  the  conversations  testified  to  by  you,  between  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  and 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  who  was  present  besides  yourself  and  them  1 

At  my  house  the  conversation  as  stated,  was  by  the  do'or  of  my  front  parlor,  in 
the  presence  of  the  Bishop  alone  ;  and  at  Little  Neck  in  the  presence  of  several 
clergymen. 
.   43.  What  clergymen  T 

There  were  in  the.  vestry-room,  the  Archdeacon  of  Trinidad,  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Goodwin,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sweetzer,  I  think  the  Rev.  Dr.  McVickar  also,  and  the 
Rev.  Mr. 'Beare:  .  •'•••"', 

44.  Were  these  gentlemen  all  present  when.Mrs.  Beare  entered  the  vestry-room  1 
.     I  think  they  all  were,  I  know  that  several  were. 

45.  Was  Mrs.  Beare,  when  she  entered,  accompanied  by  any  person,  and  by 
•  whom  1 

By  a  lady  ;  I  think  Miss  Strong. 

46.  Did  she  introduce  the  lady  to.  the  Bishop  1 
I  do  not  know. 

47.  Did  the  lady  say  any  thing  to  the  Bishop  ? 
I  did  not  hear  her  say  any  thing.    • 


96 

48.  Was  the  lady  with  her  all  the  time  that  she  remained  in  the  vestry-room  ! 
I  do  not  remember,  there  were  so  many  in  the  vestry-room,  which  was  small. 

49.  Were  there  more  ladies  in  the  vestry-room  than  Mrs.  Beare  and  Miss 
Strong. 

I  think  not. 

50.  When  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  were  presented  hy  yon  to  the  Bishop,  as  you 
have  testified,  had  they  just  entered  the  room,  and  were  they  unattended  ? 

I  had  been  with  them  to  my  green-house,  heard  them  regret  that  they  were  too 
late  for  the  Confirmation,  proposed  to  them  to  be  presented  to  the  Bishop,  and  they 
promptly  consented,  and  were  presented  by  me  then,  without  delay,  in  the  front 
parlor,  to  which  we  proceeded  from  the  green-house. 

51.  Who  walked  from  the  green-house  with  you? 
Mrs.  Beare,  who  accepted  my  arm. 

52.  Who  walked  with  .Mr.  Beare  * 

A  lady,  whose  name,  I  think,  was  Miss  Strong. 

53.  Do  you  know  Miss  Strong  ? 

She  was  introduced  to  me,  I  think,  on  lhat  occasion. 

54.  Did  you  all  enter  the  room  where  ^the  Bishop  was,  together  1 
We  did  not. 

55.  Who  did  not  * 

Mr.  Beare  and  the  lady  with  him,  Miss  Strong. 

56.  Did  you  and  Mrs.  Beare  alone  enter  the  room  where  the  Bishop  was  T 

We  went  together  through  the  open  door  of  the  parlor,  leading  to  the  portico  : 
and  in  about  a  minute  Mr.  Beare,  alone,  followed  us,  leaving  the  lady  on  the  portico. 

57.  Was  Mrs.  Beare  presented  before  Mr.  Beare  came  up  ? 
The  moment  before. 

58.  You  have  stated  that  you  do  not  recollect  that  she  shook  hands  with  the 
Bishop,  but  as  you  expected,  you  thought  you  observed,  great  cordiality  ;  what 
were  the  manifestations  on  her  part  of-such  cordiality  T  please  describe. 

Her  countenance  and  manner. 

59.  During  the  presentation  of  Mrs.  Beare,  did  she  still  hold  on  to  your  arm  T 
"When  I  presented  her  she  was  on  my  arm. 

60.  Did  she  say  any  thing  1 

I  do  not  remember  what  she  may  have  said. 

.61.  The  question  is  repeated  ? 

Had  she  not,  I  think  I  must  have  taken  notice  of  it. 

62.  I  ask  you  now  again,  Did  she  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop  ? 
I  do  not  remember. 

63.  If  she  had  not  shaken  hands  would  you  not  have  noticed  it  1 
I  think  not. 

64.  If  you  had  not  expected  that  her  reception  of  the  Bishop  would  be  cordial, 
would  you  have  noticed  her  manner  of  reception  ? 

I  had  no  reason  to  expect  any  thing  but  cordiality  between  them,  and  therefore 
expected  it,  and  must  have  observed  any  seeming  coldness. 

65.  After  your  presentation  of  Mrs.  Beare,  did  Miss  Strong  enter  the  room  where 
the  Bishop  was  ? 

I  do  not  remember. 

66.  Was  Miss  Strong  presented  to  the  Bishop  ? 
Not  by  me,  nor  at  all  that  I  know  of. 

67.  Can  you  recollect  the  words  used  by  Mr.  Beare  ID  the  invitation  of  the 
Bishop  to  dinner  ? 

The  request  I  well  remember,  hut  not  the  words. 

68.  When  was  your  attention  first  called  to  this  conversation,  after  it  occurred  * 
I  spoke  of  it  immediately  .that  I  heard  of  their  feelings  towards  the  Bishop. 

69.  When  was  that  *  • 

Since  the  meeting  of  the  General  Convention^. 

70.  Did  you  present  any  other  person  to  the  Bishop  on  that  day  ? 

I  did,  several;  eight  or  ten  ladies,  several  of  the  clergy,  and  other  gentlemen. 

71.  Can  you,  at  this  time,  recall  the  manner  of  either  of  these  persons  when  pre- 
sented to  the  Bishop,  besides  that  of  Mr.  and'  Mrs.  Beare  ? 


97        '  •  V  \  *'••• 

I  can  recall  nothing  inconsistent  with  .the  prevailing'cordiality.of  the  occasion. 

72.  If  there  had  been  different  shades-  of  cordiality  exhibited  on  the  part  of  perr 
eons  presented,  do  you  think  you  could  now.  recall  the  difference  of  those  shades  of 
cordiality  ? 

I  think  that  I  could  remember  anything  inconsistent  with  the  good  feeling  of 
the  occasion. 

73.  You  have  said,  in  your  direct  examination,  that  the  Bishop  congratulated 
Mrs.  Beare  on  the  advancement  of  her  husband1  to  the  priesthpod ;  t'o  Which  sh'o 
replied  with  evident  satisfaction..   What  did  she  say  ? 

Her  precise  words  I  do  not  remember ;  but  her  manner,  I  distinctly  remember. 
74. '  Did  she  say  any  thing  ? 
1  think  she  did',  or  I  must  have  taken  notice  of.it. 

75s   Did  you  not  feel,  Doctor,  on  both  the  occasions  .testified  to,  at  your  house, 
and  at  the  church,  happy  yourself! 
.1  did. 

76.  Was  any  person   present  with  the  Bishop  when  you  entered. the  parlor  at 
your  own  house  ] 

There  may  have  been  in  a  remote  part  of  the  room,  but  I  do  not  remember  ;  the 
room  is  large. 

77.  What  was  the  Bishop  doing  at  that  time  1 

He  had  gone  into  the  room  after  dinner,  but  whether  alone  or  w^th  company,  I 
cannot  say. 

78.  Was  Dr.  Wainwright  in  the  room  1 

I  think  not  at  that  time — .at  the  time  of  the  presentation  referred  Jo. 

•  .       Direct  'Examination  resumed. 

10.  You  have   stated  that  during  the  interview  at  which  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare 
were  presented  to  the  Bishop  by  you,  the  request  was  made  by  Mr.  Beare  that  the 
Bishop  would  dine  with -him  the  next  day,  and  that  the  Bishop,  after  pleading  a* 
pre.vious  engagement,  and  being  thereupon  urged  by  Mr.  Beare,  accepted  the  invi- 
tation.   Are  there  any  circumstances  which  fix  your  recollection of  that  fact?  and 
if  so,  please  to  state  them. 

[This  question  was  objected  to  bv"  the  Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  and  its  ad- 
missibility  argued  by  Counsel  on  both. sides,  and  the  objection  overruled  by  th'e 
Court,  on  the  withdrawal  of  the  last  clause  and  alteration  of  its  form  by  the  Counsel 
for  the  Respondent,  as  follows,  viz  :] 

You  have  stated  that  during  the  interview  at  which  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  were 
presented  to  the  Bishop  by  you,  the  request  was  made  by  Mr.  Beare  that  the  Bish- 
op.'would  dine  wijh  him  the  next  day,  and.  that  th,e  Bishop,  after  pleading  an  en- 
gagement, and  being  thereupon  urged  by  Mr.  Beare,  accepted  the  invitation.  Did 
any  circumstance  occur,  soon  after,  tending  to  fix  <hat  conversation  in  your  mem- 
ory T 

A.  circumstance  did  occur  the  next  day  to  fix  it  firmly.    . 

11.  You  have  stated  -that  you. do  hot  recollect  the  names,  of  persons  other  than. 
Mr.  Thomas  C.  Butler,  who  referred  .to  statements  by  Mr.  and  Mrs..  Beare,  at  va- 
riance witii  your  recollection,  because  it  was  a  topic  of  such  C9Himt)n  remark  as  to 
prevent  your  specifying  names.  .At  wh'at  time  was  it  such- topic  T 

.  At  the  time  of  the  General  Cunvuntion.  I  never  'heard  it  before.  .  I  mean: 
that  I  never  heard  of  any  difficulty  between  the  fajni-ly  of  Mr.  Beare  and  the  Bishop 
until  that  time,  and  suspected  none. 

12.  -When. you  proposed  to  Mr:  and  ^Irs.  Beaxe  to  be  presented  to  the  Bishop, 
and.they  promptly  consented,  upon  what  part  of  the  premises  were  you  ? 

At  the  green-liouse.  .    •  •    .  '   .  '     •  . 

13.  How  far  was  that  from  the  room  in, which  the  presentation  took  place! 
•'     About  100  feel.  '-. 

14.  After  you  had  presented  Mrs.  Beare  to  the  Bishop,  did  she  hold  on  to  /  onr 
arm;  or  let  ii  go  I  •     - 

She  let.  it  go.    I  turned  to  see  and  present  Mr.  Beare,  and  then  presented  him. 
J5.  How  long  was  il  before  slie  resumed  yoiir  arm  T     • 
•••:•..  13 


98 

The  time  occupied  by  the  conversation  between  Mr.  Beare  and  the  Bishop,  about 
two  or  three  minutes;  after  which  we  proceeded  to  view  the  premises  with  their 
female  friend  Miss  Strong. 

16.  You  have  stated  that  you  well  remember  the  request  of  Mr.  Beare  to  the 
Bishop  to  dine  with  him,  but  not  the  words — do  you  remember  the  manner,  and  if 
so,  describe  it. 

I  remember  that  the  manner  was  cordial,  for  I  must  have  observed  the  contrary. 

17.  Do  you  recollect  who  waited  on  Mrs.  Beare  to  her  carriage,  when  she  left 
your  house  1 

The  Bishop  and  myself. 

Cross- Examination  resumed. 

79.  Do  I  understand  you  as  saying  that  you  never  heard  of  any  difficulty  between 
Bishop  Onderdonk  and  Mr.   or  Mrs.  Beare,  before  the  meeting  of  the  General 
Convention  ] 

I  never  had  heard  of  it  before,  and  then  heard  it  with  surprise. 

80.  Had  you  never  heard  before  of  a  meeting  of  several  clergymen  at  the  house 
of  the  Bishop,  to  converse  with  him  on  the  subject  of  an  alleged  insult  to   Mrs. 
Beare  1 

I  never  heard- of  it  until  the  time  of  the  General  Convention] 

81.  Why  did  you  say  you  expected  the  meeting  of  Mrs.  Beare  and  Bishop  On- 
derdonk would  be  cordial  1 

Because  the  Bishop  had  always  spoken  to  me  in  the  kindest  terms  of  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Beare,  and  was  to  ordain  him  on  the  next  day. 

82.  Where  was  Mr.  Beare,  when  you  and  the  Bishop  handed  Mrs.  Beare  to  her 
carriage  ? 

I  think  that  he  was  already  in  the  carriage,  having  just  unfastened  the  rein  of 
his  horse,  and  brought  the  carriage  to  the  door. 

83.  Was  Miss  Strong  in  the  carriage  ? 
I  think  not. 

84.  Did  you  not  see  her  get  in  the  carriage  1 

I  must  have  seen  her,  of  course.  I  do  not  distinctly  remember  the  particulars  of 
her  getting  in. 

85.  Who  attended  Miss  Strong  to  the  carriage  ? 

We  all  went  together  from  the  house  to  the  carriage.  By  "  all"  I  mean  the 
Bishop,  the  two  ladies,  and  myself. 

86.  Are  you  sure  that  Mr.  Beare  did  not  attend  his  wife,  or  Miss  Strong,  to  the 
carriage  1 

I  have  a  reason  for  thinking  that  he  did  not — I  am  not  sure.  His  uniform  prac- 
tice to  bring  his  own  horse  from  '.the  post  at  the  stable,  to  the  door,  leads  me  to 
think  that  he  did  so  on  that  occasion.' 

87.  Did  both  you  and  the  Bishop  have  hold  of  the  hand  or  arm  of  Mrs.  Beare, 
in  conducting  her  to  her  carriage  ! 

I  do  not  remember  that  either  did. 

88.  By  wailing  upon  her  to  her  carriage,  then,  you  mean  that  you  and  the  Bishop 
walked  with  her  to  the  carriage  ? 

I  mean  that  we  descended  the  stairs  leading  from  the  door  of  the  house  to.  the 
carriage  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs. 

89.  Can  you  now  say  that  Mr.  Beare  did  not  hand  his  wife  to  the  carriage  1 
It  is  my  impression  that  he  did  not. 

90.  Can  you  be  more  positive  ? 
J  cannot. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  f,he  Court  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

• 


99  -.   • 

•   Thursday,  December  26th,  1844, 
half. past  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, Connecticut,  North  Carolina, 'Vermont,  Kentucky',  Ohio,  New  Jersey, 
the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,.  Western  New  York, 
South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South 
Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the. Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  Rev.  Frederick  J.  C4oodwin  was  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the 
Counsel  for  the  Respondent. 

Henry  A.  Smythe,  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Re- 
spondent, was  sworn  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  the  Commissioner  appointed 
by  the  Clerk. 

The  Rev.  FREDERICK  J.  GOODWIN  was  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  profession,  and  where  do  you  reside  ? 

I  am  a  Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  and  reside  in  Brooklyn. 

2.  How  long  nave  you  resided  there  1 

I  went  there  in  January  last,  remaining  until  the  first  of  June,  and  returned  the 
7th  of  November. 

3.  Where  did  you  reside  during  the  years  1842  and  1843  1 

In  Flushing  ;  except  that  I  was  absent  2  or  3  months.  I  commenced  residing' 
there  in  December,  1837,  and  left  January,  1844. 

4.  Do  you  know  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare  and  his  wife,  and  if  so,  how  long 
have  you  known  them  ] 

I  do  know  them,  and  have  known  them  from  their  first  residence  at  Little  Neck, 
in  the  town  of  Flushing. 

5.  Were  you  present  at  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Beare  to  the  Priesthood,  in  Jiily, 
3843? 

I  was. 

6.  Where  did  it  take  place  T 
In  the  church  at  Little  Neck. 

7.  Were  you  in  the  vestry-room  of  that  church  after  morning  service  ! 
I  was. 

8.  Whom  did  you  see  there  on  that  occasion  ? 

The  Bishop  of  New  York,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sweetzer,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Schroeder,  I 
think,  Mrs.  Beare,  and  a  Miss  .Strong1 — perhaps  s6me  others,  though  I  do  not  par- 
ticularly recollect.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Beare  was  present. 

9.  Did  you  hear  any  conversation  between  the  Bishop  and  Mrs.  Beare,  or  ob- 
serve their  deportment  towards  each  other  ;•  if  so,  state  and  describe  both  ? 

I  do  not  recollect  of  hearing  any  conversation  that  passed  between  them  at  that 
time.  Their  deportment  towards  each  other  seemed  perfectly  kind,  and  friendly 
and  cordial  in  every  respect. 

10.  Did  you  dine  at  the  house  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare  on  that  day  1 
I  did. 

11.  Who  composed  the  party  at  dinner  ? 

The  Bishop,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Swdbtzer,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bease  and  wife,  Miss  Strong, 
and  myself.  There  may  have  been  one  or  two  others,  though  I  do  not  recollect  of 
any. 

12.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  Mr.  Beare  and  his  wife,  or  either  of  them, 
conversed  with  the  Bishop  during  dinner  ] 

I  do.     They  both  conversed  with  the  Bishop. 

13.  Describe  the  manner  of  that  conversation,  whether  free  and  cordial,  or  con- 
strained and  reserved,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Beare  \ 


100 

On  the  part  «f  both  of  them  it  seemed  to  me  perfectly  free  and  eordial. 

14.  Do  you  know  whether  the  Bishop  had  been  invited  to  dine  at  Mr.  Franklin's 
on  that  day;  and' state  the  circumstances  of  your  knowledge,  and  how  and  when 
the  invitation  was  given  1  :       -          .        ' 

The  Bishop  was  invited  to  dine  at  Mr.  Franklin's  on  that  day.  The  invitation 
was  given  me  some  few'  <Iays  previous  by  Mrs.  Franklhi,  to  be"  extended  to  the 
Bishop.  I  did  extend  that  invitation  oa  the- arrival  of  the  Bishop  in  Flushing,  on 
the  Fri'day  preceding  the  Sunday. 

15.  Drd  you  .at  any  time,  and  when,  meet  Mr.   Beare  on  board  the  .Flushing 
steamboat;  had  you  any  conversation  with  him  in  which  the  Bishop  was  referred  ' 
la ;  if  so,  state  as  near  33  you  can  the  particulars  of  that  conversation  ! 

I  did  meet  Mr.  Be^re,  abdut  14  months  since,  oil  board  the  Flushing  steamboat. 
He  did  speak  of  the  Bishop.  The  circumstances  which  led  to  it  are  as  follows  : 
He  remarked  to  me  that  he  had  subscribed  for  the  Protestant  Churchman.  I  sug- 
gested to  him,  that  it  might  .be  regarded  by  some  as  arraying  himself  against  the 
JBishop.  He  replied  he  sh6uld  'be  sorry  to  have  it  so  regarded  ;  .that  he  had  none 
but  kind  feelings  to  the  Bishop';  that  he  had  taken  the  paper  because  he  thought 
it.  would  prove  a  practical  family  paper,  such  as  he  believed  was  .  needed  in  this 
Diocese.  This  was  ihe.  substance  of  the  language,. and  I  have  reason  to  believe, 
almost  the  very  words.  I  felt  it  due  to  Mr.  Beare,  to  state  this-  conversation  to 
the  Bishop;  which  I  did  the  very  day,  or  if  not  the  very  day,  certainly  within 'a 
few  days. 

16.  What- was  the  manner  of  Mr.  Beare  in  his  allusion  to  the  Bishpp^  . 

It  was  such  as  led  me  to  believe  that  he  had  the  highest  esteem  &nd  respect  for, 
the  Bishop.  » 

17..  Was  this  conversation  before  or  after  the  dinner  at  Mr.  Beare's,  about 
which  you  have. testified  ! 

As  near,  as  I  can  recollect  j  it  must  have  been  about  two  months  after  the  dinner, 
at  Mr.  Beare's. 

18.  With  w'hpm  did  you  ride  from  the  church  to  Mr.  Beare's,  ihe  day  you  dined  . 
there  * 

I  rode,  I  think,  with  the  Bishop  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sweetzer. 

19.  Have  you  any  doubt  that  you  rode  with  the  Bishop  1 

I  cannot  recollect,  with  certainty  with  whom  I  rode  from,  the.  church  to  Mr. 
Beare's  house. 

20.  Were  you  present  at  the  reception,  of  the  Bishop  by  Mr.  and.  Mrs.  Beare,  at 
their  house,  and  did  you  see  them  together  before  dinner,  and  if  so,  describe  the 
manner  of  Mr.'  and  Mrs.  Beare  towards  the  Bishop,  in  those  instances. 

.  I  was  present  during  'the  interval  between  services,  with  the  Bishop' and  "Rev. 
Mr,  Sweetzer,  at  Mr.  Beare's  tiotfse.  The  manner  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare  and 
his  wife  towards  the  Bishop,  before  dinner?  at  the  table,  and  after  dinner,  was.per- 
fectly. kind,  friendly,  and  respectful. 

.•Cross-Examination.' 

1.  'At  the  dfnner  about  which  you  have  testified,  do  you  recollect  whether  Mrs. 
Beare  said  any  thing,  and  what,  to  the  Bishop  ?. 

I  recollect,  that  she  spoke  to  the  Bishop.     What  she  said  I  do  not 'recollect. 

2.  At  the  vestry-room  whaj  did  .Mrs.  Beare  say.fo  the  Bishop  T 

I  do  not  recollect  that  she  said  any  thing-;  it  'is  very  possible  that  she  might ; 
and  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  ;she  did. 

3.  Before  the  dinner  or  meeting  in  the  vestry-room,  had  you  ever  heard 'that 
Bishop  On'derdonk  h'ad  insulted  Mrs.  Beare  !  '• 

Never.  .  ' 

4.  Had  you  before  these  rimes  ever  heard  that  there  had  been  any  difficulties 
whatever,  between  Mr.  Beare,.  or  Mrs.  Beare,  and  the  Bishop  T 

Never. 

•    Direct  Examination  resumed. 

21.  Was  there  any  .thing  in  the  manner  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  or  either  at 


them,  towards  the  Bishop,  on  any  of  the  occasions  to  which  you  have  testified,  ra- 
dicating that  there  was  any  difficulty  or  coldness  between  them  ? 

Not  in  the  slightest  degree  ;  their  manner  towards  the  Bishop  was  as  kind  and 
friendly  in  every  respect,  as  it  could  well  have  been. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

1.  When  were  you  first  led  to  review  the  transactions  to  which  you  have  testi- 
fied, and  to  examine  your  recollection  of  them  ] 

Within  some  3  or  4  weeks  past. 
By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

2.  Was  the  manner  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  on  the  occasion  of  the  dinner,  leee 
kind,  or  cordial,  or  friendly  towards  Bishop  Onderdonk,  than  it  waa  to  yourself,  or' 
to  the  other  clergymen  present  ] 

It  was  not. 

The  REV.  HENRY  W.  SWEETZER,  having  been  sworn  on  Tuesday,  the 
24th  inst.,  was  called  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  profession,  and  where  do  you  reside? 

I 'am  a  Presbyter  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York.     My 
residence  is  at  the  Astoria  Institute,  at  Astoria,  on  Long  Island,  about  four  and  a>- 
half  miles  from  Flushing. 

2.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ? 
Since  two  years  ago  last  October. 

3.  Were  you  at  the  church  at  Little  Neck,  of  which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare  i» 
minister,  on  the  morning  of  his  ordination  to  the  Priesthood  ? 

I  was  present. 

4.  When  did  you  arrive  at  the  church*,  and  by  whom  were  you  accompanied  ? 

It  was  some  time  before  the  commencement  of  the  morning  prayer  ;  I  do  not 
remember  how  long.  I  was  in  company  with  Bishop  Onderdonk,  and  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Goodwin,  of  Flushing. 

5.  On  your  arrival  at  the  church,  did  you  enter  the  vestry-room,  and  if  sor 
who  was  there  at  the  time,  or  at  any  time,  before  the  commencement  of  morning 
service  ] 

I  went  immediately  into  the  vestry-room  with  the  persons  before  named.  There 
were  present,  besides  Rev.  Mr.  Beare,  Archdeacon  Gumming  of  Trinidad,  Rev. 
Dr.  McVickar,  Rev.  DP.  Schroeder,  Rev.  Mr.  Van  Bokkeen.  These  are  all  the 
persons  whom  I  distinctly  remember  as  present. 

6.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Beare  in  the  vestry-room  before  the  commencement  of  the 
morning  service  1 

I  have  an  indistinct  recollection  of  Mrs.  Beare  being  present ;  but,  from  a  re- 
mark that  was  made  to  her,  commendatory  of  her  qualifications  as  a  clergyman's 
wife,  made  some  time  during  the  day  that  I  was  there,  my  impressions  are  that  it 
must  have  been  in  the  vestry-room. 

7.  What  was  the  remark,  and  by  whom  made  ? 

I  cannot  remember  the  words  distinctly  that  were  used  ;  but  the  substance  of  the 
remark  was  that  she  made  a  very  excellent  clergyman's  wife.  The  remark  was 
made  by  the  Bishop  to  Mrs.  Beare. 

8.  What  circumstance  led  to  the  making  of  that  remark  1 

It  was  in  reference  to  her  preparing  the  elements  for  being  placed  upon  the 
altar  in  the  church. 

9.  Do  you  remember  how  she  received  the  remark  of  the  Bishop  * 
I  have  no  recollection  on  that  point. 

10.  Did  you  see  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  in  the  vestry-room  after  morning  service? 
I  did. 


11.  Who  besides  were  there  ? 

There  was  one  lady  present,  a.  Miss  Strong  ;  there  were  some  of  the  clergymen 
before  mentioned,  present ;  but  I  do  not  remember  which.  .  The  Bishop  was  pre- 
sent. 

12.  Did  you  hear  any  conversation  between  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  or  Airs.  Beare, 
in  the  vestry-room,  or  observe  their  deportment  towards  each  other,  and  if  so,  state 
and  describe  them. 

I  did  hear  conversation  between  them,  and  observed  their  deportment.  I  do  not 
remember  the  words  used  by  the  Bishop  ;  in  substance,  he  congratulated  Mrs. 
Deare  upon  the  elevation  of  her  husband  to  the  office  of  the  Priesthood.  Mrs. 
Beare  received  the  congratulation  with  much  apparent  satisfaction  and  good 
feeling. 

In  regard  to  Mr.  Beare's  deportment,  I  do  not  recollect,  but  he  appeared,  so  far 
as  I  remember,  much  gratified. 

13.  Did  you  dine  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Beare  on  that  day.  and  if  so,  who  com- 
posed the  pa'rty  at  dinner  ? 

I  did  dine  there.  The  persons  present,  so  far  as  I  remember,  were  Miss  Strong, 
lh«  Bishop,  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin.  I  remember  no  others  besides  the  members  of 
the  family.  I  mean  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare. 

14.  With  whom  did  you  ride  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Beare  from  the  church  ? 
I  have  no  distinct  recollection. 

15.  Were 'you  present  at  the  reception  of  the  Bishop  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  at 
the  house,  or  did  you  see  them  together  before  dinner  ?    If  so,  describe  the  manner 
of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  towards  the  Bishop,  in  those  instances. 

1  was  present.  I  did  see  them  in  the  same  room  before  dinner.  I  thought  their 
maaner  of  receiving  the  Bishop  was  very  respectful  and  courteous.  I  mean  to 
include  both  their  reception  of  the  Bishop  and  the  interval  which  occurred  before 
dinner. 

16.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  or  either  of  them, 
conversed  with  the  Bishop  during  dinner  * 

I  remember  nothing  except  the  ordinary  courtesies  of  the  table. 

17.  Will  you  describe  the  manner  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  at  dinner,  towards  the 
Bishop,  whether  free  and  cordial,  or  constrained  and  reserved  ! 

So  far  as  I  remember,  it  was  free  and  cordial. 

18.  Was  there  any  thing  in  the  manner  of  Mr.   and  Mrs.    Beare,  or   either  of 
them,  towards  the  Bishop,  during  any  part  of  that  day,  indicating  any  difficulty  be- 
tween them,  or  coldness  on  their  part  towards  him  ? 

I  saw  nothing  whatever  to  induce  such  a  belief. 

Cross- Examination . 

1.  When,  after  the  dinner  spoken  of,  did  you  first  speak  of  the  manner  of  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Beare  towards  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion,  and  to  whom 1 

I  do  not  remember  the  time,  nor  the  person. 

2.  Was  it  before  the  session  of  the  General  Convention  ? 
I  think  it  was  not. 

3.  Did  you  ever  speak  to  Mr.  Goodwin  on  the  subject,  and  when  ? 
I  have  spoken  with  him,  but  I  do  not  remember  when. 

4.  Wag  it  since  this  investigation  commenced,  or  before  ? 
I  cannot  distinctly  remember,  but  I  think  it  was  since. 

6.  Did  you  first  speak  to  Mr.  Goodwin  on  this  subject,  or  he  to  you  ? 
I  do  not  remember. 

C    Did  you  ever  speak  to  Bishop  Onderdonk  on  the  subject,  and  when  1 
I  have  had  conversation  with  him,  on  Monday  evening  of  this  week. 

7.  Never  before  ? 
Never  before. 

8.  Yoi;  say  you  heard  conversation  between  Mrs.  Beare  and  Bishop  Onderdonk, 
in  the  vestry- r6om  ;  what  did  she  say  in  that  conversation  1 

I  do  not  remember. 


103 

„  ^j_    I     *  r  i  ^   »  LX^*'4Utt       *        " 

9.  Did  she  say  any  thing  1 
I  think  she  did. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

1.  Was  the  manner  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  towards  the  Bishop,  on  the  occasion  ' 
of  the  dinner,  or  on  any  of  the  occasions  when  yon  saw  them  together,  less  eer- 
dial,  kind,  or  friendly,  than  it  was  to  yourself,  or  other  clergymen  present  1 

It  was  not. 

Cross- Examination  resumed. 

• 
» 

10.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  the  particular  manner  of  Mrs.  Beare  toward* 
either  of  the  clergymen  present  at  the  dinner,  or  elsewhere  T 

I  have  no  recollection  of  any  thing  in  particular,  except  her  deportment  toward* 
the  Bishop  as  before  mentioned,  and  towards  myself.  I  mean  her  treatment  ra 
general,  of  the  Bishop. 

11.  Can  you  now  remember  that  she  said  any  thing,  and  what,  to  the  Bishop 
that  day  ? 

I  remember  only  of  her  speaking  with  the  Bishop  ;  the  particulars  of  the  con- 
versation I  do  not  remember. 

12.  Are  you  sure  it  was  a  conversation  ? 

I  cannot  remember  whether  it  was  a  conversation  between  the  Bishop  and  her--' 
self  alone. 

13.  Do  you  remember  any  one  observation  made  that  day  by  Mrs.  Beare  to  the 
Bishop  ;  and  if  so,  what  was  it  ? 

1  do  not  remember  any  particular  observation. 

14.  Do  I  understand  you  as  saying  any  thing  more  than  this  :  That  tne  de- 
meanor ot  Mrs.  Beare  on  that  day,  in  her  own  house,  was  lady-like  to  her  Base- 
band's guests  ! 

I  can  only  testify  in  respect  to  her  general  deportment,  which  was,  eertaiaJjy 
lady-like. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

19.  If  there  had  been  any  coldness  or  reserve  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Beare  toward* 
the  Bishop,  would  you,  or  not,  have  observed  it  * 
I  most  certainly  should  hare  observed  it. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

15.  Had  you  heard  of  any  difficulties  before  that  time  between  Mrs.  Beare  %p4 
the  Bishop ! 

I  had  heard  nothing. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Whittinsbam. 

2.  Would  you  ever  have  suspected  the  existence  of  difficulties  between  Mr.  aaf 
Mrs.  Beare  and  the  Bishop,  in  consequence  of  what  you  then  •bsenred! 

I  never  should  have  suspected  any  thing  of  the  kind.  I  was  very  much  ast»0f- 
ished  when  I  heard  of  the  difficulty. 

HENRY  A.  SMVTHE  was  called  up  as  a  witness  for  the  Respondent 
examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  occupation,  and  place  of  residence  ? 

I  am  a  merchant  in  Pine-street,  and  reside  at  the  comer  of  Thompson  aa£ 
Amity  streets. 


104 

8.  Are  you  a  married  man,  and  what  was  the  maiden  name  of  your  wife  ? 
I  am.     My  wife's  maiden  name  was  Mary  F.  Franklin. 

3.  What  was  your  wife's  father's  name,  and  where  does  he  now  reside,  and 
^rhere  did  he  reside  in  the  summer  of  1842  ? 

Joseph  L.  Franklin — at  Bayside,  Flushing,  where  he  has  resided  several  years. 

4.  Were  you  married  in  the  summer  of  1842,  or  when  were  you  married  ? 
I  was  married  in  May,  1843. 

5.  Did  your  wife,  then  Miss  Franklin,  reside  with  her  father  at  Bayside  in  the- 
summer  of  1842  t 

She  did. 

6.  Have-you  any  recollection  of  being  at  the  house  of  your  father-in-law  at  any 
time  in  the  month  of  July,  1842,  in  company  with  Bishop  Onderdonk  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Beare  and  his  wife  * 

I  have. 

7.  Was  this  in  the  evening  T 
It  was  in  the  afternoon. 

8.  Do  you  remember  how  long  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  remained 
at  Mr.  Franklin's  that  evening  ? 

Until  after  tea. 

9.  Was  it  dark  at  the  time  they  left,  or  did  they  leave  before  1 

I  do  not  remember ;  but  it  strikes  me  they  were,  anxious  to  leave  before  dark  ; 
[  do  not  remember  particularly. 

10.  Have  you  any  recollection,  during  the  time  they  were  at  Mr.  Franklin's, 
of  seeing  the  Bishop  take  any  improper  liberties  with  your  present  wife  V 

No,  sir.  I  may  add,  that  she  was  not  a  person  who  would  encourage  those  things. 

11.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  having  said  at  that  time;  in  consequence  of 
seeing  the  Bishop's  conduct  towards  Miss  Franklin,  that  if  it  was  not  for  his  sta- 
tion, you  would  take  satisfaction  of  him,  or  any  words  to  that  effect  ? 

It  would  be  well  for  me  to  remark,  that  I  had  known  Bishop  Onderdonk  for 
several  years,  and  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  and  felt  well  acquainted,  or  on 
terms  of  jesting  occasionally  ;  and  I  believe  I  made  some  such  remark  in  jest ; 
which  I  should  not  have  done  if  I  had  felt  that  the  Bishop  had  ever  taken  any 
improper  liberties,  within  my  knowledge. 

12.  Was  that  remark  made  by  you  to  the  Bishop  himself,  or  to  any  third  person  I 
It  being  a  joke,  it  was  intended  for  him' to  hear.     I  might  remark,  at  the  same 

time,  that  the  Bishop  went  on  a  platform  in  a  tree,  in  front  of  the  piazza,  with  my 
intended  at  that  time,  after  my  inviting  her  to  go,  and  her  playfully  refusing  to  go 
with  me — which  called  these  remarks  from  me  in  jest. 

13.  Who  married  you  ? 
Bishop  Onderdonk. 

14.  Has  Bishop  Onderdonk,  ever  since  this  occurred,  continued  to  be  on  terms 
of  intimacy  with  your  father-in-law's  family,  and  with  yourself  and  wife  ? 

I  cannot  say  as  to  my  father-in-law's  family.  I  know  he  has  been  in  the  habit 
of  visiting  them,  whenever  he  has  visited  the  churches  in  that  quarter.  As  for 
myself,  I  have  invited  the  Bishop,  when  I  have  seen  him,  to  visit  me  ;  which  he 
has  not  done,  as  I  have  been  a  housekeeper  but  a  short  time. 

Cross-Examination. 

1.  Do  you  remember  on  what  day  of  the  week  it  was  when  you  saw  the  Bishop 
at  Mr.  Franklin's,  as  you  have  testified  1 

I  do  not.  I  generally  visitedthere  from. Saturday  until  Monday.  I  should  t'hir.k 
it  likely  this  was  on  Saturday ;  at  any  rate,  there  were  some  services  the  next 
4ay,  I  should  judge,  as  hear  as  I  remember  ;'  it  is  my  impression  the  Bishop  was 
expected  there  at  dinner  the  next  day.  . 

2.  When  the  Bishop  went  up  in  the  tree   on  the  platform,  and  Miss  Franklin 
was  with  him,  she  having  playfully  refused  to  go  up  there  with  you,  did  the  Bishop 
humor  the  joke  1 

We  were  all  in  the  spirit  of  joking. 

3.  Did  the  Bishop  lay  his  hand  or  his  arm  on  Miss  Franklin's  shoulder ! 


I  should  judge  not ;  for  those  things  generally  do  not  take  place  without 
encouragement  on  the  part  of  the  female. 

4.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  Bishop  did  not  do  so  1 

Not  to  my  knowledge :  and  I  generally  took  some  notice  of  my  intended's 
ways  ;  a  man  is  not  apt  to  be  blind  in  that  quarter. 

5.  Would  you  have  considered  it  an  indignity  worthy  of  your  notice,  if  the 
Bishop  had  playfully  pat  his  arm  on  Miss  Franklin's  shoulder  ? 

No,  sir ;  inasmuch  as  he  was  intimate  with  the  family,  and  looked  upon  in  the 
light  that  he  was. 

6.  Please  recollect,  with  more  certainty  if  you  can,  whether  this  occurrence 
was  on  Saturday  or  Sunday  !  . 

My  impression  is  it  was  Saturday. 

Pending  this  cross-examination,  Mrs.  Mary  Franklin,  the  RCT.  John 
Dowdney,  and  John  F.  Schroeder,  Jr..  appeared  in  Court  as  witnesses  for 
the  Respondent,  and*  were  severally  •sworn  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  Com- 
missioner. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

15.  Did  you  meet  the  Bishop  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Franklin  on  any  other  day 
during  that  year,  than  the  one  of  which  you  make  mention  1 

I  cannot  say  that  I  did :  never  in  company  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  except  tt 
that  time. 

16.  Did  you  observe  whether  there  was  any  coldness  or  reserve  on  the  part 
either  of  Mr*,  or  Mrs.  Beare  towards  the  Bishop  during  that  afternoon  or  eve- 
ning ? 

I  did  not  observe  any.    • 

17.  If  there  had  been  any  sucE  coldness  or  reserve  on  the  part  of  Mr.  or 
Mrs.  Beare,  towards  the  Bishop,  would  you  have  observed  ft  ? 

I  think  I  should,  most  certainly.  There  were  no  persons  present  but  the  fami- 
ly. Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  and  the  Bishop.  If  there  had  been  a  large  party  I  might 
not  have  observed  it. 

Mrs.  MAKT  FnA:nci.ra  was  called  up. as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for  the 
Respondent,  and  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1 .  What  is  your  husband's  name  ? 
Joseph  L.  Franklin. 

2.  Where  did  you  reside  in  July,  1843,  and  where  have  you  ever  since  resided? 
At  Bayside.  Flushing. 

3.  In  the  summer  of  1842.  was  Bishop  Onderdonk  at  your  boose,  in  company 
with  Rev.  Mr.  Beare  and  his  wife  1 

They  were  at  my  house,  and  spent  the  afternoon  there.  I  think  it  most  have 
been  at  the  time  of  Confirmation  in  Mr.  Beare's  church. 

4.  Do  you  remember  bow  late  they  stayed  at  that  time  I 

I  do  not.     I  think  they  left  early,  as  he  was  in  the  habit  of  leaving  early. 

5.  Before  or  after  dark  ? 
It  was  after  tea. 

6.  Did  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  or  either  of  them,  show  any  coldness  or  reserve  to- 
wards the  Bishop,  on  that  visit  to  your  house  ! 

I  did  not  see  any  thing  like  it. 

7.  Do  you  recollect  the  period  of  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Beare  t»  the  Priesthood  t 
I  do. 

8.  Had  you  invited  Bishop  Onderdonk. to  dine  with  you,  on  the  Sunday  upon 
which  that  ordination  took  place  !  and  if  so,  through  whom  had  you  given  the  in- 
vitation * 

14 


108 

I  did,  through  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin,  to  dine  that  day,  or  make  U3  a  visit  when- 
ever most  convenient  to  him. 

9.  Did  you  expect  him  to  dine  with  you  on  that  day  1 
j[  did  —  and  went  to  the  church  to  bring  him  home. 

10.  Did  you,  or  not,  speak  to  him  on  the  subject  after  the  morning  service,  and 
tell  him  you  had  come  for  him  "? 

I  did  speak  to  the  Bishop,  and  tell  him  that  I  came  expressly  for  him.  He  said 
fee  would  be  most  happy,  but  seemed  to  feel  himself  engaged  to  Mr.  Beare.  The 
words  I  cannot  remember,  but  he  seemed  to  consider  himself  engaged,  and  referred 
me  to  Mr.  Beare  to  make  arrangements  ;  and  that  if  Mr.  Beare  gave  him  up,  ho 
•would  return  with  me. 

11.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Beare  ;  and  if  so,  what  passed  between  you  and  him  on 
<he  subject  ? 

I  djd  see  Mr.  Beare,  and  urged  him  to  give  up  the  Bishop,  and  allow  him  to  re- 
turn with  me.  I  do  not  remember  the  words  Mr.  Beare  used,  but  he  refused  me, 
and  I  went  home  without  the  Bishop. 

12.  Where  was  this  conversation  .between  you  and  Mr.  Beare  ? 
In  the  front  of  the  chancel  of  the  church  at  Little  Neck. 

13.  On  the  first  occasion  of  which  you  have  spoken,  when  the  Bishop  was  at 
your  house,  in  company  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  did  you  observe  any  improprie- 
ty, or  undue  freedom,  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop,  towards  your  daughter,  now  Mrs. 


I  did  not. 

Cross-  Examination  . 

I.  Did  you  observe  any  playful  liberties  towards  your  daughter,  on.  the  part  of 
Hie  Bishop  * 

Nothing  more  than  he  was  in  the  habit  of  doing  —  patting  her  on  her  shoulder, 
a«d  calling  her  "  my  child."7 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

1.  Did  Mrs.  Beare  hear  the  conversation  between  you  and  her  husband,  about 
ibe  Bishop's  dining  with  you  or  with  them  ? 

That  I  cannot  say.  I  merely  spoke  to  Mrs.  Beare  that  day,  but  cannot  say 
where  she  stood  when  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Beare. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

14.  Upon  the  occasion  when  the  Bishop  spent  the  afternoon  at  your  house,  as 
you  mentioned,  in  company  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  did  you  invite  or  expect 
<fee  Bishop  to  spend  the  night  at  your  house  1 

E  did.  His  trunk  was  brought  down  and  put  in  his  room,  expecting  him  to  re- 
jeain  with  us.'  I  mean  the  room  which  he  had  previously  occupied,  two  or  three 
years  before  when  he  visited  us. 

15.  Had  he  stayed  at  your  house  the  night  before  * 
He  had  not. 

16.  Why  did  the  Bishop  not  stay  at  your  house  that  Sunday  night  ! 

Mr.  Beare  took  him  home  with  him  ;  and  I  felt  a  little  hurt  at  Mr.  Beare,  as  he 
knew  that  we  expected  the  Bishop  to  remain  at  our  house.  That  was  one  reason 
why  I  thought  Mr.  Beare  ought  to  have  allowed  him  to  dine  with  us  on  the  subse- 
<jaeot  occasion,  having  taken  him  previously. 

Cross-  Examination  resumed. 

9.  Do  you  remember  that  any  thing  was  said  by  Mr.  Beare,  and  what,  as  to  the 
Bishop's  going  home  with  him  that  night  1 
I  do  not  remember  what  passed  at  the  time. 


107 

-  4.  C&  *    • 

3.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Beare  to  give  the  Bishop  up  on  that  occasion,  or  did  yea 
only  invite  the  Bishop  himself  to  remain  ? 

I  have  not  a  distinct  recollection  of  what  passed  at  that  time. 

4.  Do  you  remember  whether  or  not  the  Bishop  declined  when  invited  to  remain 
that  night  T 

I  do  not  remember. 

5.  What  day  of  the  week  was  it  when  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  visited  you,  in  com- 
pany with  the  Bishop  ? 

Having  nothing  to  designate  it,  I  do  not  recollect. 

6.  Do  you  remember  whether  it  was  on  the  day  of  Confirmation  ? 

I  am  not  positive  ;  but  I  think  it  was  the  day  before.  I  may  be  mistaken  in  tt>e 
day. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

17.  You  say  that  Mr.  Beare  knew  that  the  Bishop  was  to  stay  at  your  house 
that  night ;  how  do  you  know  that  ? 

I  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Beare,  wishing  to  borrow  Mr.  Franklin's  horses  to 
send  for  him.  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Beare,  saying,  (he  had  said  his  horse  was  not  aM# 
to  go,)  he  need  take  no  trouble  about  bringing  the  Bishop,  as  I  would  see  that  he 
came — we  expected  him  at  our  house.  I  then  invited  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  to  meet 
him  there,  which  was  the  cause  of  their  coming. 

18.  Did  you  inform  them,  in  that  note,  that  you  expected  the  Bishop  to  stay  at 
your  house  1 

I  think  I  did. 

19.  Did  your  horses  and  carriage  bring  the  Bishop  to  the  church  that  morning? 
Our  horses  did  not,  they  were  engaged  ;  and  Mr.  Goodwin  brought  the  Bis&op 

to  our  house. 

20.  Did  the  Bishop  go  from  your  honso  that  morning  to  church  1 
He  did  not  go  from  our  house  ;  he  had  not  been  at  our  house. 

21.  When  was  the  Bishop's  trunk  brought  to  your  house  ? 
The  afternoon  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  met  him  there. 

22.  Was  his  trunk  left  at  your  house  that  night  ] 

I  am  under  the  impression  it  was.     There  was  a  great  deal  of  difficulty  about 
taking  it  in  Mr.  Beare's  wagon.     The  arrangement  was  to  leave   the  trunk,  and 
that  the  Bishop  should  call  for  it  in  the  morning.     Mr.  Beare  brought  the 
round  the  next  morning,  on  his  way  to  the  Point,  which  makes  me  think  that 
trunk  was  left. 

23.  When  the  difficulty  arose  about  getting  the  trunk  in  the  wagon,  did  you  say 
any  thing  about  the  Bishop's  staying  at  your  house  that  night  ? 

I  have  not  a  distinct  recollection,  but  most  probably  I  did,  aa  we  were  ail  disap- 
pointed in  his  not  remaining  there  that  night. 

24.  Did  yon  express  that  disappointment  at  the  time  1 
Certainly.    It  w.as  understood  by  all. 

C^ross- Examination  resumed. 

7.  Can  you  now  recollect  whether  the  Bishop  declined  to  remain  during  the 
night  ? 

I  do  not. 

8.  Did  you  see  the  Bishop  on  his  first  arrival  at  your  house  that  afternoon  ? 
I  did. 

9.  Who  accompanied  him  ? 

Mr.  Goodwin  brought  him  down,  as  1  have,  stated. 

10.  Were  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  at  your  house  when  fce  arrived  ? 
They  were  not. 

11.  How  long  afterwards  did  they  arrive? 
I  cannot  say  positively  how  long. 

12.  Did  Mr.  Goodwin  remain  at  your  house  with  the  Bishop  any,  and  whs* 
length  of  time  ? 


108 

t  do  not  recollect  whether  he  stayed  to  tea  or  not,  but  I  think  not. 

13.  Did  any  other  person  accompany  the  Bishop  besides  Mr.  Goodwin  ? 
I  think  not. 

14.  When  was  this  note  written  by  you  to  Mr.  Beare — on  the  day  of  his  visit  to 
yon,  or  the  day  before  ? 

I  think  the  day  before  ;  certainly  not  that  day.  I  rode  to  Flushing  to  see  Mr. 
Goodwin  to  make  arrangements  about  bringing  the  Bishop  to  our  house,  as  our 
horses  would  be  in' the  city. 

15.  Was  this  on  the  occasion  of  the  ordination  or  confirmation  ? 
Confirmation. 

16.  Did  you  see  the  Bishop  that  morning,  after  morning  service  at  the  church? 
I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  spoke  to  him  after  church ;  I  was  there  at  the  con- 
firmation. 

17.  After  you  wrote  the  note,  then,  you  .did  not  speak  to  the  Bishop  until  he 
was  brought  to  your  house  in  the  afternoon  by  Mr.  Goodwin? 

I  did  not. 

The  Rev.  JOHN  DOWDXKY  was  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for 
the  Respondent,  and  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  profession,  and  where  do  you  reside  ? 

I  am  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  and  reside  at  pres- 
ent in  the  city  of  New  York. 

2.  Are  you  the  Rector  of  a  church  in  this  city? 

I  am  the  Rector  of  St.  James's  Church,  and  have  been  connected  with  it  for  more 
than  three  years;  one  year  as  assistant  minister,  the  last  two  as  Rector. 

3.  During  your  connection  with  that  church,  did  you  know  Helen  M.  and  Jane 
O.  Rudderow  as  attendants  at  and  communicants  of  that  churcli ;  and  if  so,  up  to 
what  time  ? 

They  were  parishioners  of  St.  James's  Church  until  within  the  last  sixteen 
months.  They  left  a  year  ago  last  July. 

4.  Do  you  remember  any  occasion  during  the  year  1843,  when  Bishop  Onder- 
donk  had  been  officiating  at  that  church,  when  any  interview  took  place  between 
him  and  the  Misses  Rudderow,  either  or  both  of  them,  in  that  church  1  if  so,  state 
the  particulars  thereof,  as  nearly  as  you  can  recollect  them. 

I  was  present  at  two  interviews  on  the  same  day,  in  the  morning — one  before, 
the  other  after  service.  It  was  on  the  occasion  of  a  confirmation.  I  brought  the 
Bishop  to  the  church  that  morning  from  his  residence  in  Franklin-street.  As  we 
came  into  the  church  before  service,  the  Misses  Rudderow  were  sitting  near  the 
chancel  rail,  engaged  in  teaching  their  Sunday-school  classes.  I  walked  with  the 
Bishop  towards  the  vestry-room,  and  in  so  doing  we  passed  very  near  the  Misses 
Rudderow.  They  were  sitting  almost  in  the  passage.  I  then  saw  mutual  saluta- 
tions, of  a  very  friendly  character,  between  the  Bishop  and  the  two  Misses  Rud- 
derow. 

There  was  a  good  deal  of  conversation  at  the  time  on  both  sides,  between  the 
Bishop  and  these  ladies,  which  lasted,  I  think,  several  minutes.  We  remained 
there  during  the  conversation,  and  then  passed  into  the  vestry-room.  That,  I  be- 
lieve, is  the  substance  of  all  that  took  place  during  that  interview. 

There  were  several  questions  asked  and  answered ;  but  I  do  not  remember  the 
particulars  of  the  conversation.  Of  this,  however,  I  have  a  distinct  recollection, 
that  there  were  very  friendly  greetings  and  remarks  on  both  sides.  The  conver- 
sation was,  I  think,  generally  on  the  state  of  the  parish,  and  the  increase  of  schol- 
ars in  the  Sunday-school. 

There  was  some  inquiry  made  as  to  the  Psalm  or  Hymn  to  be  sung,  on  the  part 
of  the  Misses  Rudderow.  I  ought  to  say  that  the  confirmation  did  not  take  place 
until  the  afternoon ;  the  Bishop  engaging  to  spend  the  day  with  me,  I  preferred 
having  the  confirmation  at  the  second  service. 


109 

.5.  Do  you  remember  whether  either  or  both  of  the  ladies  shook  bands  with  tho 
Bishop,  on  occasion  of  their  first  meeting  ] 

I  believe  they  both  shook  hands  with  him  very  cordially. 

6.  Have  you  any  -doubt  on'that  point?. 
I  have  not. 

7.  Proceed  now  to  state  the  particulars  of  the  second,  interview  between  the, 
Bishop  and  these  ladies  in  the  church  ? 

.After  the  morning  service,1 1  accompanied  the  Bishop  towards  the  door  of  the 
•  church.  There  is  but  one  door,  the  centre  door.  .As  we  passed  out;of  \\\e  church 
•into  the  vestibule,  we  again  met  the  Misses  Rudderow  -t  at  that  second  interview 
there  was  conversation,  and  friendly  greeting  between  them  and  the  Bishop,  'of  the 
same  ftiendly  character  as  before  service.  The  conversation,  I  think,  continued 
for  some  time^  and  was  very  animated  ;  that  is,  for  two  or  three  minutes-^for  three' 
or  four  minutes,  I  should  think  so,  particularly  on  the'  part  of  Miss  Jane  Rud- 
derow. -.There  was  laughing,- and  loud  remarks  on  the  part  of  Miss  J.arie  Rudde.- 
row.  .  •  . 

I  heard  something  said  about  the  music  at  that  time.  I  do  not .  now  re- 
member what  the  conversation  .was  about  in  other  respects.  I  remember  dis- 
tinctly there  was  something  about  the  music.  I  will  merely  say,  as  explanatory, 
there  were  several  parishioners  standing  near  us,  and  during  the  conversation 'I 
was  talking  with  them  in  the  vestibule,  arid  near  the  outer  door.  .  What  I  have 
said  to  the  Court,' and  what  I  may  say,  is  founded  upon  my  very' best  recollection 
of  the  circumstances  occurring  at  the  time.  ' 

As  to  the  general  statement,  I  .am  quite  positive  ;  as  to  the  minor  particulars  I 
do  not  feel  quite  so  positive.  I  would  also  add  a  word  in  illustration  of  my  mean- 
ing:— as  to  the  shaking  hands,  and  friendly  salutations  and  remarks,  I  feel  quite 
positive  ;  but  as  to  the  words  that  passed  in  conversation,  I  am. not  so  positive.  I 
would  also  add  : — during  the  second  interview,  I  might  have  left  the  Bishop  for  a 
moment  Or  so,  for  the  purpose  of  conversing  with  my  paris'hioners. 

8.  Are  you  certain  that  the  t\\o  Misses  Rudderow  were  present  and  took  part 
in  the  conversation  at  the  second  interview  just  described-]" 

Of  that  I  feel  quite  certain. 

9.  Did  they,  or  either  of  them,  shake  hands  with  the  Bishop,  on  meeting  at  that 
'second  interview  ?  , 

Of'  that  1  cannot  speak  with  certainty.  My  impression,  however,  is,  that  they 
did,  as  the  Bishop  left  the  church.  .  ' 

. .    10.  Where  did  the  Bishop  and  the  ladies-  stand,  relatively  (o  .each  other,  at  the 
second  interview  ? 

In  the  vestibule  near  the  inner -door.  Neither  of  the  parties  was  on  the  stairs 
to  my  knowledge.  .1  would  add  in  continuation  of  that,  one  of  the  Misses  Rudde- 
row, Miss  Helen  Rudderow,.  might  have  been  on  the  lower  step.  The  'stairs  start 
immediately  from  the  inner  door."1  .  .  '.  .- 

11.  Do  you  remember  that  any  thing  was  said  by  either  of  the  ladies  in' that 
conversation,  in  reference  to  the  Bishop's  sermon  that  morning  ? 

I  do  remember  very  distinctly,  that  one  or  both-'of  them,- 1  think  Jane,  spoke  in' 
great  praise  of  the  sermon — 1spoke  very  highly  of  the  sermon — rsaying  that  it  was 
a  good  High  Church  sermon,  and'that  she  liked  it  very  much.   .  The  remark  w.aa 
made  to  the  Bishop. 

12.  What  were  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the  visit  of  'Miss  Jane  Rudde- 
row to  the  Bishop's  study,  relative  to 'the' benevolent  'society  of  your  Church,  as 
you  knew  them  yourself,  and  as  you  learned  them  from  her  ]     Please  state  them 
fully. 

A  benevolent  society  "\vas  formed  in  the  parish,  of  which  Mrs.  Thomas  Addis 
Emmet  was  the  'Directress.'  Understanding  from  the  Misses  Rudderow  that  they 
intended  to  use  the  church  for  the  purpose  «f  cutting  out  garments,  sewing  them 
together,  and*  fitting  them  to  the- persons  for  whom  they  were  intended,'!  strongly 
advised  them  not  to  think  of  meeting  ip  the  church  for  any  such  purpose  ;  alleging 
as  my  reason,  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  lavv;s  of  the  Church  that  such  use  should 
be  made  of  its  consecrated  edifices.  Perceiving  that'  my  advice  had  very  little 
effect  upon  the  Misses  Rudderow,  I  read  to  them  portions  of  the  Consecration  Set- 


110 

vice,  in  the  Prayer-book  ;  particularly  that  portion  which  declares  that  after  conse- 
cration, the  building  is  set  apart  for  holy  uses,  and  not  to  be  used  for  anything  un- 
hallowed or  common.  This  advice  of  mine  still  having  no  effect.  I  stated  to  them 
the  Bishop's  well-known  opinion  on  that  subject,  in  the  hope  that  they  would  re- 
spect the  Bishop's  authority  and  wishes.  When  I  spoke  of  the  Bishop.  Miss  Jane 
Rudderow  said  that  the  Bishop  would  waive,  in  their  case,  any  personal  objections 
that  he  might  have  to  the  use  of  the  church  for  such  a  purpose.  Miss  Jane  Rud- 
derow at  once  said,  that  she  would  call  herself  upon  the  Bishop,  being  sure  that  he 
would  grant  her  permission  ;  and  giving  as  a  reason  for  such  a  permission  on  the 
part  of  the  Bishop,  his  previous  kindness  to  them. 

The  remark  was,  when  I  spoke  o.f  the  Bishop's  objection,  "  Oh,  if  that's  all,  the 
Bishop  will  grant  us  any  favor." 

They  asked,  me  if  I  would  consent,  in  the  event  of  the  Bishop's  granting  them 
permission.  I  told  them  again  and  again,  that  the  Bishop's  permission  in  that  mat- 
ter would  not  change  my  own  opinion,  as  to  the  impropriety  of  such  use  of  the 
ichurch. 

I  also  added,  that  I  was  bound  by  higher  considerations  than  the  Bishop's 
opinion  ;  viz.  the  law  of  the  Church,  which  expressly  forbade  such  use  of  its  con- 
secrated edifices.  I  said  to  them,  repeatedly,  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  them 
to  use  the  church,  as  they  could  meet  at  each  other's  houses.  I  also  offered  to 
provide  a  suitable  room  for  them,  for  the  use  of  their  society. 

Still  perceiving  that  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  was  bent  upon  having  a  personal  in- 
terview with  the  Bishop  in  relation  to  this  matter,  I  endeavored  to  dissuade  her 
from  going  to  the  Bishop's  study,  by  saying  that  that  would  appear  improper  in  the 
estimation  of  my  parishioners,  and  that  they  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  my  consci- 
entious objections  to  such  use  of  the  church.  I  wish  to  add,  that  the  members  of 
our  congregation  generally  disapproved  of  their  intended  visit  to  the  Bishop,  being 
disposed  to  sustain  me  in  my  decision. 

13.  Did  you  see  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  after  her  visit  to  the  Bishop  at  his  study  ; 
and  if  so,  how  long  after  1 

I  saw  her  and  her  sister  the  next  day,,  or  within  a  few  days  after. 

14.  Did  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  at  that  time  say  any  thing  respecting  her  visit  to 
the  Bishop  ;•  and  if  so,  what  did  she  say  ? 

She  said  the  Bishop  treated  her  very  politely,  and  gave  his  consent  to  the  pro- 
posed use  of  the  church.  I  expressed  very*  great  regret  and  sorrow,  on  hearing 
that  they  had  been  to  the  Bishop,  to  them,  and  to  others  in  the  parish. 

15.  What  reply  did  she  make  to  that  I 

I  do  not  remember  the  words  exactly ;  but  I  told  them  that  my  own  opinion  and 
purpose  were  unchanged. 

Pending  the  examination,  the  hour  for  adjournment  having  arrived,  the 
.  Court  adjourned. 

Attest. 

W.  R.  WHITT1NGHAM,  Clerk. 

Thursday,  Dec  26,  1344, 
7  o'cfcei,  P.  M. 

The  Court  'met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
.  Present  as  in  the  morning. 

The  Rev.  E.  Y.  Higbee.  D.  D.,  called  -up  as  a  witness  hy  the  Counsel 
for  the  Respondent,  was  sworn  by  Richardson,  Esq..  as  commis- 
sioner, duly  authorized  by  the  State  of  New  York  to  administer  an  path, 
and  appointed  by  the  Clerk  pro  hac  vice  a  Commissioner  of  this  Court. 

The  examination  of  the  REV.  JOHN  DOWDNEY  was  then  proceeded  with. 

16.  Was  any  thing  further  than  what  you  have  stated,  said  in  that  conversation 
respecting  the  interview  with  the  Bishop  in  his  study  ? 


' 


There  was  nothing  of  any  consequence  —  nothing  having  a  direct  bearing  upon 
this  subject. 

Witness  here  desired  to  correct  a  part  of  his  testimony  given  in  answer  to  ques- 
tion 4.  Having  stated  that  the  Misses  Rudderow  were  seated  with  their  classes 
near  the  chancel  rail,  he  would  correct  it,  by  saying  that  they  were  in  the  PEWS 
ne/irfst  to  the  chancel  rail. 

Cross-  Examination  . 

1.  You  have  said  that  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  visited  the  Bishop  at  his  study  —  did 
any  person  accompany  her,  and  who  was  that  person  1 

I  believe  that  she  was  accompanied  by  Mi^s  Riker. 

2.  Did  she  request  Miss  Riker  to  accompany  her  to  the  Bishop's,  or  did  Miss  Hi- 
ker request  Miss  Jane  Rndderow  to  accompany  her? 

I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  she  requested  Miss  Riker  to  accompany  her. 
•  3.  Who  is  Miss  Riker  ! 

She  is  a  member  of  St  James's  parish.     She  is  a  communicant. 

4.  Did  you  ever  converse  with  her  on  the  subject  of  this  visit  *         .  - 
I  did.     ' 

5.  More  than  once  1 

I  conversed  with  her  in  the  presence  and  hearing  of  Miss  Rudderow  ;  I  beliCTa 

on  different  occasions. 

G.  When  did  you  last  converse  with  Miss  Riker  on  the  subject  T 

I  do  not  remember  to  have  conversed  with  her  since  the  time  of  their  visit  to  the 

Bishop's  study. 

7.  When  did  yon  last  converse  with  Miss  Riker  !  , 
Yesterday. 

8.  Have  you  not.  in  any  recent  conversation  with  Miss  Riker,  referred  to  this 
visit  ? 

I  believe  not.  I  wish  to  correct  myself.  It  now  occurs  to  me  that  I  have.  Ifc 
was  just  named  by  Miss  Riker.  not  by  myself,  for  a  moment.  It  was  just  alluded  tow 

9.  When  was  that  ? 

It  was  a  little  over  two  weeks  ago. 

10.  Was  you  requested  by  Bishop  Onderdonk,  or  any  other  person,  to  see  Miss 
Riker  on  this  subject,  since  the  commencement  of  this  trial  ? 

I  cannot  say  that  there  was  any  direct  request  made  of  me.  I  offered,  myself, 
to  converse  with  her. 

11.  To  whom  did  you  make  the  offer  1 

It  was,  I  believe,  to  the  Bishop,  and  others,  I  cannot  remember  whom.     I  be- 
lieve. however,  Mr.  Graham  was  one. 
1-2!  Who  else  ? 
I  do  not  remember  distinctly  ;  they,  however,  were  friends  to  the  Bishop. 

13.  Within  what  time  was  this  offer  made  1 

It  was,  I  believe,  within  a  month  or  six  weeks.. 

14.  Do  you  now  say  that  you  cannot  recollect  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom 
you  made  this  offer  ! 

I  do  not  recollect  the  names  of  all  .  I  gave  the  names  of  two.  My  impressioa 
is  that  I  did  not  converse  with  any  others  very  directly  on  the  snbject.  It  was 
with  the  Bishop  and  his  Counsel.  1  wish  to  state  on  what  point  I  was  to  converse 
with  her.  I  had  understood  that  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  complained  of  some  insult 
on  the  part  of  the  Bishop,  at  that  interview  ;  and  knowing  that  Miss  Riker  was 
present,  I  wished  to  know  from  Miss  RikT  whether  there  was  any  truth  in  Miss 
Jane  Rudderow's  complaint.  That  was  the  only  object  for  which  1  held  any  con- 
versation with  Mi.-ss  Riker.  I  asked  Miss  Riker  if  she  would  testify  to  what  took 
place  at  that  interview,  because  I  believed  she  would  testify  to  the  truth.  Thai,  I 
believe,  was  my  first  and  only  conversation  with  Miss  Riker  on  the  subject,  for  a 
few  moments  only. 

15.  Is  that  the  conversation  which  you   have  before  referred  to,  between  you 
and  Miss  Riker  on  the  subject  ? 

I  think  it  is  the  only  conversation  I  have  had  with  Miss  Riker  on  the  subject, 
since  these  proceedings  were  commenced. 


113 
16.  Who  commenced  thai  conversation  ? 


• 


I  did.  ' 

17.  What  did  you  mean  just  now  by  testifying  under  your  oalh,  that  the  subject' 
was  alluded  to  by  Miss  Hiker  and  not  by  you  1 

The  visit  to  the  Bishop's  study  was  there  alluded  to,  by  Miss  Riker,  and'. not  the 
general  Subject  upon  which  I  was  just  questioned.     I  wish  to  add,  that  my  con- 
.  versat'ion  with  Miss  Riker  was  particularly  to  ask  her  whether  she  would  testify 
as  to  whether  the  'Bishop  hail  insulted'  Miss  Rudderow. 

18.  Did  you  tell. Miss  RLker  at  that  time  that  you  was  requested  to  see  her  on 
the -subject,  by  Bishop  Onderdonk  and  .Dr.  Seabury,  or  either  of  them? 

•  .-«••  I  now  remember;: — the  mention  -of  f)r.  Seabury's.  name  reminds  me  that  I  raen- 
•  .•  tioned  the  subject  to  him.  I  had  some  conversation  with  him  on  the  subject ;  his 
name  did  not  occur  to  me  before.  I  do  not  know  that  I  said  that  I  was  requested 
to  do  so ;  J  offered  to  do- so,  and  the  gentlemen 'before-mentioned,  the  Bishop  and 
Dr.  Seabury,  expressed  a  wish  that  I  should  do  so.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  told 
h&r  that  1  had  offered  ;  I  might  have  said*  that  it  was  the  Bishop's  wish  I  should 
see  her  ;•  I  do  not  remember  very  distinctly ;  I  might  have  said  so. 

1.9.  Where  did  you  see  her  on  the  occasion  referred  to?  ' 
:  AtvSt.  James'fi  church.  '  •     . 

'  2D..  Was  it  since  Miss 'Jane  Ruddeiow  gave  her  testimony  irr  this  cause  ? 
.•   '  It  was,  I  believe,  previous  to  her  giving  testimony  ;  several  days  previous. 

21.  When  did  you  first  hear  that  Miss  J*ane  Rudderow  complained  of  ill-treat-. 
'  inent  at  the  Bishop's  study? 

I  believe  that  I  first  heard  of  it  from  Dr.  S.eabury,  since  these  proceedings  were 
.   commenced  ;  I  may  have  heard  it  from  the  Bishop,  but  I  think  it  was  from.  Dr. 

Seabury.  J  can  speak  confidently  now,  that  it  was-from  Dr.  Seabury. 
,  •  •  '22.  Where  did  you  receive  this  communication  from  Dr.  Seabury  \ 
•  •  .  At  Dr.  Seabury's  residence. 

23.,  Did  he  send  for  .you  to  make  this-  communicalion  to  you  % 
I  do  not  think  that  Dr.  Seabury  sent  for  me.    .1  felt  anxious  to  hear  from.  Df. 
Seabury  ;  when  I  heard  there  were  affidavits  made,  T  was  anxious  to  know  what 
.  they  were  about.     My  object  in  going'  to'  Dr.'  Seabufy's  was  to  get  information  in. 
legation  'to  the  charges  brought  against  ihe  Bishop. 
.••  .          24.  What  affidavits  do  yon  refer  to  V    ' 

'    The.  affidavits  on  which  the  .Presentment  is  founded.    I  never.heavd  until  within 
a  short  time  before'  the  Presentment  was  made',  what  the  charges  against  the 
'  .  Bishop  were,  except  in  one  case,  and  1  believe  that  Dr.  Seabnry  gave  me' the  first 
•  information  on  the  subject.      . 

25.  Did 'he  give  you  that  information 'when  you  went  tdt  see  him,  as  you  have 
.before  testified?. 

I  cftmnot  say  when — 1  might  have,  seen  "him  on' other  occasions. 

26.  Did  not  Dr.  Seabury  request  you  at  the  time  when  you  went  to  see  him,  to 
call  on  Miss  Riker,  in'.respect  to  any  insult  alleged  to  have  been  offered  to  Miss 
Jane  Rudderow  1 

.He  did  nb't  request  me;  I  told  him  that  I  had  th'e  means  of  getting  informatioo 
on  the  subject,  as  Miss  Rik'er  was  one  of-  my' parishioners ;  I  also  told  him  that  I 
•would  see  her  and  ascertain  something  about  it.  •  Dr.  Seabury  replied,'"  I  wish 
•you  would." 

27.  After  you  had  seen  Miss  Riker,  did  you  report  to  Dr-  Seabury  what  she 
said?  .   •- 

.     1  might  haVe  told  Dr.-  Seabury  afterwards  what  Miss  Riker  said.     I  believe-  it 
\vas  some  time  after  that,  that  I  saw  Dr.  Seabury.     I  did  not  see  him  immediately 
afterwards.     I  did  noj  see  him,  either,  for  the  purpose  of  telling  him  what  had 
•  been  said.      '  ; 

28.  Did  you  report  to  Dr.  Seabury  1  '    .       . ' 

Nd ;  that  implies  that  I  was  sent  by  Dr.  Seabury.  and.  went  in  obedience  to 
his  order,  and  reported  what  1  hafl  heard.  '  I  wish  to  say  that  Dr.  Seabury  and 
myself  conversed  together  on  this  subject'  as  members  of  the  same  Diocese  and 
friends  of  the  Bishop,  and  without  any  plan  or  design. 

29.  Did  you  tell  Dr.  Seabury  what  "Miss  Riker -said  to  you? 


118  •:;       . 

I  do  not  recollect.  I  spoke  of  the  interview  and  the  conversation  ;  but — I  bc- 
Jieve  that  I  told  Dr.  Seabury  of  the  interview  and  of  the  remarks  of  Miss  Rikerj 
and  said  that  she  did  not  wish  her  name  mentioned  in  this  matter. 

I  wish  to  say  to  the  Court  that,  having  heard  a  good  deal  of  conversation  in  re- 
lation to  these  proceeding's,  and  having  spoken  with  a  number  of  clergymen  on  the 
subject,  I  cannot  remember  distinctly  what  occurred  in  every  case. 

30.  Before  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  went  to  see  the  Bishop,  as  you  have  testified, 
how  many  interviews  did  she  have  with  you  on  the  subject  of  the  contemplated 
visit'? 

1  cannot  say  exactly  ;  we  always  met.  at  the  church,  and  at  Sunday-school,  on 
Sunday  and  other  days  of  service.  A  great  deal  of  conversation  passed  at  different 
times.  There  were  scarcely  any  other  persons  present  but  the  Misses  Rudderow 
and  Miss  Riker.  I  think  that  she  spoke  several  times  of  her  intention  of*  going  to 
the  Bishop. 

31.  Were  there  any  other  persons,  and  who,  in  your  congregation,  that  took  an 
active  interest  in  the  benevolent  society  spoken  of,  except  these  three  ladies  ? 

There  were  several  others.     I  do  not  remember  all  their  names,  as  I  believe  I 
never  met  but  once  with  them  in  their  society.t    I  would  name,  however,  Miss 
Harriet  Delafield,  Miss  Margaret  Grenzebach,  Mrs.  Emmet — I  believe   that  Mrs. 
Peter  Schermerhorn  was  an  officer  of  the  society— I  think  she  was.     I  will  add  ' 
two  more  names — Miss  Kniffen  and  Miss  Rutter. 

32.  How  many  of  these  ladies  did  you  ever  see  and  converse  with,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  tire  s6ciety  1 

All  that  I  have  named,  with  the  exception  of  Mrs.  Schermerhorn.  I  now  recol- 
lect two  other  names — Mrs.  White  and  Miss  Mills ;  and  a  third,  Miss  Moore. 

33.  Did  you  ever  see,  in  reference  to  the  society,  any  but  the  three  ladies  first 
referred  to,  except  the  once,  when  you  met  with  the  society? 

Yes,  s{r. 

34.  Who  were  the  most  efficient  members  of  the  society  ? 

On  the  occasion  that  I  refer  to,  there  were  seven  or  eight  members  at  work. 
The  three  persons  first  named — the  Misses  Rudderow,  and  Miss  Riker. 

35.  You  mentioned  that  you  offered  to  get  a  room  for  the  society,  do  you  mean 
that  you  offered  to  hire  and  pay  for  a  room  ? 

I  said  that  I  should  be  willing  to  do  that,  rather  than  that  they  should  meet  in  the, 
church.     There  was  a  room,  however,  which  we  hired  for  the  purpose  of  holding 
religious  -services  on  Sunday  afternoon,  which,  room  was  offered  to  them  for  their  . 
use. 

36.  Where  was  that  room  ? 

It  was  about  three  quarters  of  a  mile  from  St.  James's  Church.  It  was  used  for 
general  purposes.  It  was  not  a  dwelling-house.  It  was  two  stories  high. 

37.  Was  a  tavern  kept  in  that  building  ?• 
No,  sir. 

38.  Who  lived  in  the  house  1 

Nopersonsoccupied.it.  I  first  offered  them  a  room  .very  near  the  church, 
within  a  few  yards  of  the  church ;  objections  were  made  to  that,  as  there  was  a 
.tavern  in  the  house.  It  was  a  tavern.  There  was  a  bar  in  the  lower  room. 

39.  What  objection  was  made 'by  the  ladiek  to  the  other  building  1         « 
The  objection,  I  believe,  was  its  distance  from  the  church. 

40.  You  have',  said,  that  other  members  of  the  congregation,  or  that  members  of 
the  congregation  agreed  with  you  in  thinking  that,  the  visit  should  not  b.e  paid  to 
the  Bishop.     Who  were  they  T 

I  cannot  remember  the  names  now.  I  know  that  Miss  Grenzebach,  and  Mrs. 
White,  and  Miss  Rutter,  made  objections.  • 

41.  After  the  visit  to  the  Bishop,  when  and  where  was  it,  that  Misa  Jane  Rud- 
derow expressed  herself  gratified  with  her  interview  with  the  Bishop  ? 

It  was  at  the  church,  and  very  soon  after  :  I  do  not  remember  exactly  when.  ' . 

42.  Who  was  present  besides  you  and  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  1 

I  believe  that  Miss  Helen  Rudderow  and  Miss  Riker  were  present — I  can  say 
positively  that  they  were.  They  were  generally  together. 

43.  Do  you  remember  the  language  employed  by  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  ? 

15  .•••••. 


114 

1  do  not  remember  the  precise  words.  The  word  "politely"  was  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  subject. 

44.  Are  you  sure  that  it  was  not  Miss  Riker  who  gave  this  account  of  the  in- 
terview ? 

Miss  Riker  also  spoke  of  the  interview.  I  am  sure  that  it  was  not  Miss  Riker. 
They  both  spoke  of  the  interview  in  terms  of  gratification. 

45.  When  you  and  the  Bishop  entered  the  church,  in  1JB43,  and  saw  the  Misses 
Rudderow  attending  to  their  classes,  did  you,  or  not,  introduce  the  ladies  to  the 
Bishop  ? 

I  have  no  recollection  whatever  of  introducing  the  ladies  to  the  Bishop. 

46.  Can  you  answer  the  last  question  move  positively  ? 
I  think  that  I  could  say,  positively,  that  I  did  not. 

.  47.  Before  that  time  was  you  aware  that  the  Misses  Rudderow  felt  unpleasant- 
ly towards  the  Bishop  ? 

I  was  aware  that  Miss  Helen  Rudderow  felt  unpleasantly  towards  the  Bishop,  but 
I  was  not  aware  that  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  did,  except  so  far  as  she  sympathized 
with  her  sister — not  from  any  personal  reason. 

48.  Had  you,  before  that  time,  requested  these  ladies  to  treat  the  Bishop  kindly 
or  respectfully,  when  he  should  visit  the  Church  ? 

No,  sir.  1  would  add,  I  believe  I  expressed  to  them  a  wish  that  every  thing 
connected  with  the  services  might  pass  off  pleasantly.  ' 

49.  Do  you  recollect  what  the  young  ladies  said  to  the  Bishop  before  the  morn- 
ing-service T 

I  do  not  remember,  further  than  what  I  said  this  morning  in  my  direct  examin- 
ation. 

50.  When  you  said  to  the  young  ladies,  that-  you  .hoped  every  thing  would  paas 
oft*  pleasantly,  what  did  they  reply  ? 

I  do  not  remember  the  exact  words  of  the  reply. 

51.  Were  they  not  these  words,  "  We  shall  not  forget  that  we  are  ladies  ?" 

I  do  not  believe  that  such  words  were  used ;  at  least  I  have  no  recollection  of 
hearing  such  words. 

52.  After  the  morning  service,  are  you  sure  that  both  of  the  Misses  Rudderovr 
were  present  during  the  conversation  with  the  Bishop  to  which  you  have  testified 
in  your  direct  examination  1 

They  were  both  present,  both  very  near  the  Bishop. 

53.  What  other  persons  were  present  ?     Please  name  them. 

Mr.  Alonzo  Alvord,  one  of  the  Vestrv  of  the  parish,  was  present,  and  heard  the 
conversation.  He  waa  waiting  for  us  to  accompany  him  to  his  residence ;  w6 
were  going  to  dine  with  him  ;  he  was  standing  with  us,  and  bore  part  in  the  con- 
versation. There  were  several'  of  the  parishioners  who  were  very  near  us.  I 
cannot  name  them  now.  Mr.  Peter  Schermerhorn  was,  I  know  ;  Mrs.  Jones  and 
Miss  Delafield,  I  believe,  were  present,  and  very  near  us  at  the  time. 

54.  Was  Miss  Riker  present '! 
I  believe  she  was  near  us. 

55.  When  was  your  attention  first  called  to  these  transactions,  after  the  day  of 
their  occurrence  T 

At  no  .time,  by  any  other  person.  •  I  mentioned  recently,  however,  that  such 
transactions  had  taken  place.  • 

56.  When  did  you  first  speak  of  them  1 

It  was  recently,  within  a  few  weeks.  I  think  it  was  after  the  General  Con- 
vention. It  might  have  been -during  the  Convention. 

• 

At  ten  o'clock  the  Court  adjourned. 
Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


115 

Friday,  Dec.  27,  1844, 
fa:f-pa*t  9,  A.  M. 

The  Court  met.  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois-  Connecticut.  North  Carolina,  Vermont. 
Kentucky.  Ohio.  New  Jersey,  .the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Lou:-  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware; 

the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  and  prayers. 

The  examination  of  the  Rev.  JOHN  DOWDXET  was  resumed. 

Direct  Examination  rtstuned. 

17.  When  was  die  first  conversation  which  yon  had  with  Miss  Riker  alone  up- 
on the  subject  of  the  visit  to  the  Bishop! 

A  little  more  dan  two  weeks  ago. 

18.  Have  you  had  any  other  conversation  with  her  alone  on  the  subject  ? 

19.  When  yon  spoke  in  your  cross-examination  of  conversations  with  Miss  Ri- 
ker. shortly  after  die  visit  to  the  Bishop's,  who  did  yon  mean  to  be  understood  were 
present  at  those  conversations ! 

-s  Helen  and  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  were  always  present. 

20.  When  yon  called  upon  Miss  Riker  about  two  weeks  ago,  did  you  first  allude 
to  die  subject  of  die  alleged  inaoh  to  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  on  die  visit  to  ibe  Bish- 
op's, or  did  she  * 

She  did ;  I  commenced  conversation  on  die  general  subject.  Dining  die  conver- 
sation she  alluded  to  die  visit  to  die  Bishop's.  I  then  stated  to  her  die  object  of  my 
conversation.  I  asked  her  if  she  would  testify  as  to  what  took  place  at.the  Bishop's. 

'21.  Did  the  benevolent  society  of  which  you  hare  spoken,  after  your  objection 
to  the  use  of  the  church,  use  either  of  die  rooms  which  you  had  previously  pro- 
posed, and  if  so.  which  of  diem  ? 

They  used  die  public  room  of  which  I  have  spoken  ;  not  die  tavern,  but  die  cue 
in  die  two-story  boose  I  have  described. 

Was,  or  not.  that  room  a  more  suitable  or  central  place  for  die  use  intended 
dan  the  church  * 

It  was  a  much  more  suitable  and  central  place. 

•J3.  Wben  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  communicated  to  yon  the  circumstances  of  her 
visit  to  die  Bishop's  study,  did  you  say  any  thin?  to  her,  and  if  so,  what,  upon  the 
subject  of  her  going  to  die  Bishop's,  as  connected  with  her  sister's  difficulty  * 

I  said  to  her  that  I  wondered  she  should  go,  under  the  circumstances  of  Helen's 
insult :  and  wished  her  not  to  mention  that  insult  again,  as  no  one-would  credit 
die  statement,  she  (Jane)  having  put  herself  in  die  Bishop's  way  without  any  suf- 
ficient reason.  She  always  told  me  that  Helen  alone  was  insulted,  aad  dut  she 
(Jaae  Rudderow)  had  always  beem  treated  very  politely  by  die  Bishop. 

Cross- Eiaaination  returned. 

57.  Did  yon  doubt  that  die  two  Misses  Rudderow  and  Miss  Riker  sincerely  de- 
siied  die  use  of  die  church  for  the  benevolent  society  * 

I  have  reason  to  believe  that  they  were  anxious  for  die  good  of  die  parish. 

58.  The  question  is  repeated. 

They  wished  die  use  of  die  church ;  I  did  not  think  they  were  sincere. 

59.  Why  did  yon  doubt  their  sincerity  ? 

Because  there  were  many  things  in  die  conduct  of  the  Misses  Rudderow.  at 
times,  which  led  me  to  doubt  their  sincerity. 

60.  Did  you  doubt  the  sincerity  of  Miss  Riker  * 

I  have  always  believed  Miss  Riker  to  be  a  sincere  and  excellent  person. 

61.  The  question  is  repeated. 

J  cannot  answer  in  anv  other  war. 


62.  The  question  is  repeated. 

I  cannot  judge  correctly  as  to  Miss  Riker's  sincerity  in  that  particular  :  I  always 
thought  that  she  was  too  much  under  the  influence  of  the  Misses  Rudderow. 

63.  You  have  said,  in  your  direct  examination,  that  you  stated  to  Miss  Jane 
Rudderow  that  you  wondered  she  should  go  to  the  Bishop's  under  the   circum- 
stances of  Helen's  insult,  and  wished  her  riotlo  mention  that  insult  again,  as  no 
one  would  credit  the  statement ;  when  was  that,  where,  and  who  were  present  ? 

It  was  said  at  St.  James's  Church,  in  the  hearing  of  Miss  Helen  Rudderow  and 
Miss  Riker,  subsequent  to  the  visit  to  the  Bishop's  study. 

64.-  In  what  year  ? 

The  visit  to  the  Bishop  was  in  ihe  winter  of  1842-3.  I  cannot  say  whether 
this  conversation  was  in  '42  or  '43. 

65.  Did  you  ever  have  more  than  one  conversation  with  the  Misses  Rudderovr 
and  Miss  Riker,  all  together,  upon  the  subject  of  the  visit,  after  it  was  made  *  . 
.  .    .I  cannot  say,  on  that  particular  subject,  our  conversations  being  of  a  general 
character. 
•     66.  In  speaking  of  an  fnsuh  to. Miss  Helen,  what  insult  did  you  refer  to  ? 

This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  'for  the  Respondent,  and 
the  opinions  of  the  Court  being  severally  taken-,  the  objection  was  sus- 
tained. 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  Western  New 
York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia, 
and  ihe  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  'Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Wrestern 
Missionary  Diocese,  sustaining  :  and  the  Bishops  of  Connecticut,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  and 
Delaware,  dissenting. 

67.  You  have  said,  in  your  direct  examination,  that  she.  Jane  Rudderow,  al- 
ways told  you  that  Helen  alone  was  insulted ;  and  that  she,  Jane,  had  always 
been  treated  very  politely  by  the  Bishop :  when  and  where  were  you  so  told  by 

.  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  ] 

During  our  conversations  on  the  subject  at  St.  James's  Church.  The  precise 
time  when.  I  cannot  state. 

68.  More  than  once  ? 
Yes. 

69.  When  first  t 

The  subject  was  so  often  named  when  we  were  present,  that  I  cannot  remem- 
ber when  it  was  first  named.  They  very  often  talke'd  about  it,  and  always  seemed 
to  take  pleasure  in  talking  about  it,  which  they  did  against  my  own  wish. 

70.  Can   you  now.  specify  one  occasion,  time,  and  place,   when  they,  talked 
about  it  T 

I  cannot  distinctly  specify  the  time  :or  times.  The  place  was  St.  James's 
Church. 

71.  What  did  they,  or  either  of  them  say^  in  any  one -of  these  conversations  on 
this  subject  1 

This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent ;  and 
the  opinions  of  the  Court  being  severally  taken,  the  objection  was  over-' 
ruled. 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina.  Vermont,  Ken- 
tucky, Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisi- 
ana and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bi?hops  of 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,-  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
overruling  :  the  Bishops  of  Western  New  York  and  Maryland  dissenting; 
and  the  Bishop  of  South  Carolina  declining  to  give  an.  opinion. 


117  .'I-' 

I  do  not  remember  the  precise  words.  The  conversations  took  place  during 
a  year  and  a  half.  I  do  not  remember  the  days  of  the  month  on  which  we  con- 
yersed  on  the  subject.  It  was  first  named  to  me  very  soon  after  my  connection 
with  the  parish,  by  Miss  Helen  M.  Rudderow,  in  the  presence  of  her  sister  and 
Miss  Hiker.  The  reason  why  she  named  it,  I  think,  was  this  :  she  wished  to 
disparage  the  Bishop  in  my  estimation,  she  disapproving  very  much  ef  the  Bishop's 
conduct,  in  his  opposition  to  the  plans  of  the  Rev.  James  C.  Richmond. 

72.  What  did  she  say  on  that  occasion  1    " 

She  did  not  state  to  me  the  particulars  of  the  insult ;  but  I  remember  asking 
her  why  she  did  not  resent  it  at  the  time.  On  other  occasions,  I  asked  them  what 
the  insult  was.  They  said  they  would  not  tell  me. ,  I  then  said,  "  Do  not  men- 
tion it  to  me  again." 

73.  Did  they  ever  mention  it  to  you  again  ? 
They  afterwards  spoke  of  it. 

74.  How  came  Miss  Jane   Rudderow  to  tell  you  that  the  Bishop  had  always 
treated  her  politely :  what  called  for  such  a  remark  on  her  part  ? 

She  gave  it  as  a  reason  why  it  was  not  improper  for  her  to  go  to  the  Bishop's 
study. 

75.  Did  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  ever  say,  in  any  of  the  conversations  spoken  of, 
that  she  would  not  go  alone  to  the  Bishop's  study  !  -    .»  . 

I  do  not  believe  that  she  ever  said  so. 

76.  Do  you  know  why  she  was  accompanied  by  Miss  Riker  on  that  visit"? 
I  do  not ;  I  think,  however,  that  Miss  Riker  offered  to  go  with  her.  ... 

77.  Did  not  Miss  Riker,  to  your  knowledge,  in  offering  to  go  with  her,  say  that 
she  would  protect  her,  or  words  to  that  effect  ? 

No. 

Have  you  endeavored  to  procure  testimony  for  Bishop  Onderdonk  on  this 
trial? 
I  have 

79.  Any  besides  that  of  Miss  Riker  ? 

Yes.  .  • 

80.  What  other? 

Mr.  Alonzo  A.  Alvord  and  Miss  Rutter. 

81.  When,  and  at  whose  request  1 

At  the  request  of  the  Counsel  for  the  Bishop.. 

62.  Have  you  met  and  conferred  with  Counsel  on  the  subject  ? 

[This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  under 
advice  of  the  Court,  withdrawn,  and  modified  by  Counsel  as  follows:  Apart  from 
mentioning  to  Counsel  what  you  could  testify  in -the  cause,  have  you  conferred 
with  them  upon  the  defence  of  the  Respondent,  and  aided  them- by  your  advice  and 
services,  in  making  ont  that  defence  * 

Objection  being  again  taken  to  the  modified  form,  the  opinions  of  the  Court 
were  severally  taken,  when  the  objection  was  overruled,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois, 
Vermont,  Kentucky.  Ohio,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana*  and 
Delaware,  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia,  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  ^Iissionarv  Diocese,  overruling  it ;  and  the 
Bishops  of  Connecticut.  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  Western  New  York,  South 
Carolina,  and  Maryland  dissenting.] 

I  have  acted.  I  trust,  in  this  matter,  entirely  under  a  sense  of  duty  to  my  Church  ; 
I  have  conferred  with  Counsel  as  to  what  1  knew  of  the  interview  of  the  Misses 
Rudderow  with  the  Bishop. 

83.  Is  that  all  that  has  passed  between  you  and  the  Counsel  ? 

That  is  substantially,  I  believe,  all'  that  has  passed,  connecting  with  it  the  names 
of  Mr.  Alvord  and  Miss  Rutter,  as  beforesaid — '1  offered  to  go  and  see  them  on 
this  matter. 

84.  Have  you  not  exerted  yourself  to. prevent  this  trial  of  the  Bishop? 

I  certainly  was  very  anxious  that  the  trial  should  not  take  place  if  it  could  be 
avoided  ;*I,  however,  have  made  no  direct  exertion  to  prevent  it. 
So.  Have  you  made  any  indirect  exertion-? . 


118 

I  think  I  have  not  made  any  exertion  to  prevent  it,  having  uniformly  said  that, 
if  the  Bishop  were  guilty  of  the  charges,  we  ought  to  know  it. 

86.  Have  you  done  any  thing,  and  what,  to  suppress  this  inquiry  \ 
I  have  done  nothing  to  prevent  the  trial. 

87.  After  you  learned  from  Miss  Helen  Rudderow  that  she  had  had  a  diffi- 
culty with  the  Bishop,  were  you  and  the  Misses  Rudderow  upon  friendly  terms  1 

Yes. 

88.  Were  they  active  and  useful  members  of  your  church  ? 

[This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  the  ob- 
jection was  sustained  by  the  Court,  the  Bishop  of  the  North  Western  Missionary 
Diocese  dissenting.] 

Pending  the  examination  of  this  witness,  HENRY  M.  ONUERDONK  was 
called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  sworn  by 
Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  the  Commissioner  appointed  by  the  Clerk. 

The  REV.  EDWARD  Y.  HIGBEE,  D..  D.,  was  therr  called  by  the  Counsel 
for  the  Respondent,  and  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  What  is  your  profession,  and  place  of  residence  1 

I  am  a  Clergyman  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  reside  in  the  city 
of  New  York. 

8.  Did  you,  in  or  about  the  month  of  July,  1842,  visit  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in 
company  with  the  Rev.  Drs.  Muhlenberg,  Milnor,  and  Wainwright  ;  and  if  so, 
state  where  that  interview  with  the  Bishop  took  place,  and  all  that  passed  during 
the  interview  ? 

I  did  visit  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in  company  with  those  gentlemen,  in  or  about  the 
month  of  July,  1842.  The  interview  took  place  in  the  Bishop's  own  house.  As 
nearly  as  I  can  recollect,  Dr.  Milnor  stated,  in  general  terms,  that  a  complaint  had 
been  made  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beare,  of  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  at  a  recent  visita- 
tion of  Mr.  Beare's  parish.  I  should  have  said,  improper  conduct  in  relation  to 
Mrs.  Beare. 

Dr.  Milnqr,  I  think,  stated  the  matter  only,  in  general  terms ;  that  the  improper 
conduct  alleged,  took  place  in  a  carriage  while  riding  to  or  from  church.  After 
this  general  statement  by  Dr.  Milnor,  I  think  that  Dr.  Milnor  referred  to  Dr.  Muh- 
lenberg for  a  more  specific  statement.  Whereupon  Dr.  Muhlenberg  drew,  I  think, 
from  his  pocket,  a  paper  containing  notes  which  he  had  made  previously  to  the  in- 
terview. 

The  statement  thus  made  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg  from  his  notes,  was  not,  to  my 
mind,  a  clear  one.  The  Bishop  listened  very  attentively  to  the  statements  of  both 
gentlemen,  and  manifested  a  great  deal  of  astonishment,  and  I  thought  at  the  time, 
indignation.  He  stated  in  reply,  in  very  few  words,  that  he  had  always  been  in 
the  habit  of  meeting  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  as  a  father  would  his  children  ;  (I  speak 
now  the  substance,  rather  than  the  precise  words  that  were  said  ;)  that  he  was 
perfectly  aware  that  his  manner  was  familiar,  but  that  if  there  was  any  impurity 
of  feeling,  or  evil  thought,  (or  something  to  that  effect,)  in  relation  to  his  deport- 
ment, or  the  mutual  deportment  of  the  parties,  it  was  not  to  be  attributed  to  him. 
He  stated  that  he  should  deeply  regfct  to  impute  any  such  feeling  to  Mrs.  Beare  ; 
but  that  if  such  a  statement  was  persevered  in,  it  would  be  unavoidable. 

It  was  then  proposed — I  had  thought  by  the  Bishop  himself,  until  I  was  corrected 
by  Dr.  Milnor,  in  a  conversation- with  him,  as  I  believe — that  Mr.  Beare  should 
have  an  interview  with  the  Bishop,  on  the  next  day,  in  our  presence.  This  was 
agreed  upon,  and  we  left  the  Bishop. 

3.  Do  you  recollect  what  was  the  language,  or  manner,  or  both,  of  the  Bishop, 
in  assenting  to  the  proposal  to  see  Mr.  Beare  the  next  day  ? 

I  hardly  know  how  to  answer  that  question,  as  I  was  under  the  impression,  until 
a  few  days  since,  that  the  Bishop  made  the  proposal  himself. 


lift  .. 

4.  Can  you  state  what  Dr.  Muhlenberg  stated  on  that  occasion,  in  relation  to  tho 
charges  referred  to  ? 

I  cannot.  I  confess  it  was,  to  my  mind,  a  confused  statement.  I  do  not  remem- 
ber it. 

5.  Did  the  proposed  visit  to  the  Bishop  take  place  the  next  day,  in  company 
with  Mr.  Beare  ;  and  if  so,  state  fully  what  took  place  on  the  occasion  of  that  visit  1 

.  The  proposed  visit  did  take  .place  on  the  next  day,  in  company  with  Mr.  Beare. 
Dr.  Muhlenberg,  and  Dr.  Milnor,  with  myself,  were  present.  Dr.  Wainwright  was 
not  there. 

The  former  interview  had  taken  place  in  the  study ;  this,  I  think,  was  held  in 
the  room  back  of  the  study.  The  Bishop  began  the  interview,  by  saying  to  Mr. 
Beare,  (I  now  will  speak  substantially,  I  do  not  pretend  to  recollect  the  very  words,) 
that  he  had  heard  with  great  pain,  or  that  he  was  deeply  grieved  at  having  heard, 
that  some  part  of  his  conduct  or  deportment  had  given  offence  to  him  and  his 
wife.  He  assured  Mr.  Beare  that  he  was  free  from  all  intention  of  giving  of- 
fence. He  expressed  his  regret,  and  desired  Mr.  Beare  to  express  the  same  to 
Mrs.  Beare. 

He  then,  in  reply  to  some  question  or  suggestion,  said  that  he  had  no  design  in 
any  thing  he  had  said,  to  impeach  the  motives  or  veracity  of  Mrs.  Beare  ;  but  that 
she  was  mistaken,  or  some  word  to  that  effect.  I  do  not  recollect  that  after  that, 
any  conversation  of  importance  took  place,  until  we  were  about  leaving  ;  when  we 
all  shook  hands  with  the  Bishop,  and  Dr.  Milnor  said,  in  substance,  to  the  Bishop  : 
I  hope,  Bishop,  that  this  will  show  us  all,  or  show  you,  the  necessity  of  being  very 
cautious,  or  very  careful,  in  all  our  deportment. 

The  Bishop's  reply  was,  that  he  felt  the  kindness  of  Dr.  Milnor's  advice,  but 
that  he  supposed  Dr.  Milnor  knew  well,  or.  was  aware  of,  the  liability  of  clergy- 
men to  evil  reports,  and  that  scarcely  any  one,  or  no  one,  had  been  as  long  in 
the  ministry  as  he  (the  Bishop)  had  without  slanderous  reports  being  raised 
against  him. 

Dr.  Milnor's  reply  was :  that  he  did  not  know  as  to  the  general  fact ;  but  that 
HO  such  false  reports,  or  no  such  reports,  as  far  as  he  knew,  had  been  raised  against 
himself. 

He  stated,  also,  how  long  he  had  been  in  the  ministry.  The  interview  ended 
there  ;  at  least,  I  do  not  recollect  any  thing  further. 

6.  You  state  that  the  Bishop,  in  reply  to  some  question  or  suggestion,  said  that 
he  had  no  design  in  any  thing  he  had'  said  to  impeach  the  motives  or  veracity  of 
Mrs.  Beare,  but  that  she  was  mistaken,  or  some  word  to  that  eiFect ;  was  that  said 
in  reply  to  a  question  put  by  Mr.  Beare  ! 

I  believe  it  wns,  though  f  had  forgotten  that  fact  until  it  was  brought  to  my  mind, 
I  think  by  Dr.  Milnor. 

7.  Was.  or  not,  Mr.  Beare  under  the  influence  of  strong  emotion,  during  the 
whole  interview  ] 

I  think  he  was. 

8.  Was,  or  not,  the  Bishop  deeply  affected  ! 
The  Bishop  appeared  much  affected. 

Miss  MICHAL  ROBERTS  RUTTER,  and  WILLIAM  H.  ONDEKDONK,  being 
called  as  witnesses  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  were  respectively 
sworn  by  James  P.  Howard,  Esq.,  a  Commissioner  duly  authorized  to  ad- 
minister oaths,  by  the  State  of  New  York,  and  appointed  by  the  Clerk  of 
the  Court  a  Commissioner  of  the  Court  for  that  pdrpose  pro  hac  vice. 

The  REV.  EDWARD  Y.  HIGBEE,  D.D.,  was  then  cross-examined  by  the 
Counsel  for  the  Presentment. 

Cross-Eramination. 

1.  You  have  said,  in  your  direct  examination,  that  your  recollection  of  the  facts 
occurring  at  the  interviews  with  Bishop  Onderdonk  had  been  corrected  by  Dr. 
Milnor ;  I  now  ask,  have  you  much  confidence  in  your  own  recollection  of  those 
facts  ! 


.    120 

I  answer  that  I  did  not  say  that  my  recollection  of  the  facts  in  general  was  cor- 
rected by  Dr.  Milhor,  or  did  not  mean  to  say  so,  if  I  did ;  but  I  specified  two  facts 
-—I  intended  to  do  so.    Of  those  two  particular  facts  I  cannot  speak,  of  course,  with 
the  confidence  of  one  who  recollects.for  himself. 

2.  Have  you  much  confidence  in  your  own  recollection  of  the  facts  in  general? 
I  have  confidence  in  my  recollection  of  the -facts  that  I  have  stated. 

3.  Before  you  went  to  the  Bishop's  the  first  time,  did  Dr.  Muhlenberg  state  to 
you  charges  of  impropriety  of  conduct  made  by  Mr.  Beare  against  Bishop  On- 
derdonk ! 

Either  Dr.  Muhlenberg  or  Dr.  Milhor  did  ;  I  do  not  remember  distinctly  which. 
It  was  a  subject  of  conversation  when  I  was  with  them,  and  before  we  went  to  the 
Bishop: 

4.  Were  those  charges  so  stated  to  you  before  you  went  to  the  Bishop,  restated 
in  the  presence  of  the  Bishop  ? 

This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  and  after 
argument  by  the  Counsel  on  both  sides,  the  objection  was  overruled  by  the 
Court.  The  Bishops  of  Vermont,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia ;  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts.,  Rhode  Island,  .and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
overruling  it ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  North  Carolina,  Ohio,  New 
Jersey,.  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  dissenting. 

They,  were  not  stated  in  the  same  manner  to  the  Bishop,  that  they  were  stated 
to  me  before. 

5.  Did  you  not  comprehend  the  statement  as  made  to  the  Bishop  T 

I  knew  very  well  what  Dr.  Muhlenberg  intended-  to  state  tp  the  Bishop  ;  but  as 
a  statement  I  thought  it  confused.  .1  intended  to  say,  that  had  I  obtained  my 
first  knowledge  from  that  statement,  my  knowledge  would  have  been  most  imperfect. 

6.  Was   any  thing,  and.  what,  said  in  the  statement  made   before   the  Bishop 
about  the  Bishop's  putting 'his  hand  on  the.  naked  bosom  of  Mrs.  Beare  ! 

I  recollect  an  allusjon  to  it,  but  exceedingly  indistinct,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  owing 
to  the  evident  embarrassment  of  Dr.  Muhlenberg. 

7.  Was  the  idea  conveyed  to  the  Bishop  that  he  was  charged  by  Mrs.  Beare 
•  with,  putting  his  hand  upon  her  naked  bosom  I 

I  really  can  speak  rather  of  the  ideas  conveyed  to  my  own  mind,  than  of  those 
conveyed  to  the  mind  of  the  Bishop,  or  of  any  other  person;  •  There  was  nothing 
in  the  language  of  the  Bishop^that  I  recollect,  which  showed  that  such  an  idea 
had  been  Conveyed  tor  his.  mind. 

8.  Was'there  any  thing  said  in  that  'conversation  with  the  Bishop  respecting  a 
charge  that  he  had  put  his  hand  upon  the  thigti  of  Mrs.  Beare,  and  other  parts  of 
her  body  ? 

I  do  not  remember  that  any  thing  was  said  of  the  kind. 

9.  What  were  the  charges  that  the  Bishop  heard  with  astonishment,  and  indig- 
nantly denied,  as  you  have  stated  ? 

I  .have  not  so  stated  :  J  did  riot'  use  the-  words  "  indignantly  denied."  I  stated, 
or  meant  to  state,  that  the  Bishop  received  the  communication  from  those  gentle- 
men with  astonishment,  and,  as  it  see'med  to  me,  indignation. 

10.  What  were  the  alleged  charges  against  the  Bishop,  made  at  the  first  inter- 
view ?     .    • 

Dr.  Milnor  stated  generally,  and  with  clearness,  that  while  riding  to  or  from 
church,  the  Bishop  in  the  same  carriage  with  Mrs.  Beare,  and  sitting  on  the  same 
seat,  had  used  familiarities  at  which  both  Mr.  and  Mre.  Beare  felt  deeply  aggrieved. 

I  do  not  pretend' to  recollect  the  words.     I  only  speak  substantially.     I  do  not 
recollect,  that  Dr.  Milnor  was  more  specific  than  1  have  stated.     I  think  he  then 
referred  to  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  who  spoke  from  his  paper  with  evident  embarrass 
ment  and  confusion,  as  I  thought. 
.    11.  Were  the  familiarities  specified  ? 


121  •;.-•; 

Dr.  Muhlenberg  evidently  meant  to  do  so-.  I  did  not  think  his  statemerit  a  suc- 
cessful one. 

12.  Did  the  Bishop  demand  further  particulars  ! 
I  do  not  recollect  that  he  did. 

13.  Did  the  Bishop  say,  in  that  conversation,  directly  or  indirectly,  that  Mrs. 
Beare's  motives  must  have  been  impure  ? 

He  said,  if  there  were  impure  thoughts,  or  motives,  or  feelings  (I -am .not  sure 
of  the  word)  in  the  case,  they  were  not  to  be  attributed  to  biin ;  that  the  person 
imputing  them  was  responsible  for  them,  if  any  existed.  He  also  stated,  that  he 
should  regret  to  impute  such  feelings  to  Mrs.  Beare  ;  but  that  if  such  a  story  was, 
persevered  in,  it  could  not  be  avoided  ;  or  words  to  that  effect. 

14.  At   the   second   interview,   were   the   particulars  of   alleged   familiarity 
stated  * 

No. 

15.  What  was  the  difference  in  the  manner  of  the  Bishopat  the  first  and  second 
interviews  ] — did  that  difference  strike  you,  and  was  it  afterwards  the  subject  of 
remark  by  you  !  • 

There  was  a  difference  in  the  manner  of  the  Bi§hop  in  the  first  and  second  in- 
terview. The  difference  did  strike  me.;  but  I  do  not  recollect  whether  it  \fcas 
the  subject  of  remark  or  not — it  may,  or  may  not  have  been. 

16.  If  the  difference  did  strike  you,  can  you  not  now  state  what  that  difference 
was ! — and  if  you  can,  do  so.  •  '    . 

At  the  first  interview  the  Bishop  appeared,  as  I  have  sajd,  astonished  and  indig- 
nant ;  at  the  second  interview  the  Bishop,  as  I  thought,  met  Mr.  Beare  with  sor- 
row rather  than  with  indignation. 

17.  Was  you  not  disappointed  at  the  manner  in  which  the  Bishop  met  Mr. 
Beare  on  the  second  day  ! 

I  do  not  know  that  I  was  so  much  disappointed  as  displeased.  _*' 

18.  Why  displeased  ? 

I  had  never  seen  Mr.  Beare  before — never  heard  of  him;  that  I  knovr  of.  I 
knew  him  first  in  his  connection  with  this  story!  My  own  peculiar  temperament 
led  me  to  think  that  he  ought  to  have  been  met  (supposing  his  story  to  be  untrue, 
which  I  did)  with  severe  rebuke. 

19.  Did  you  not  express  to  the  Reverend  gentlemen  with  you,  immediately  after 
you  left  after  the  second  visit,  your  feelings  of  disappointment  or  displeasure  at 
the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  in  the  reception  of  Mr.  Beare ;  and  if  you  did,  what 
did  you  say  ? 

I  may  have  done  so.  I  think  it  very  likely  I  did  ;  though  I  dp  not  recollect  the 
fact. 

20.  Did  Mr.  Beare.  at  the  second  interview,  call  upon  the  •  Bishop  more  than 
once,  to  know  whether  lie  denied  the  statements  of  Mrs.  Beare  1 

I  do  not  recollect  that  he  so  called  ypon  him  at  all. 

21.  Did  any  person,  during  that  interview,  call  upon  the  Bishop,  to  know  if  he 
denied  the  statements  of  Mrs.  Beare  ? 

I  certainly  do  not  recollect  any  such  demand. 

22.  Will  you  say,  that  during  .the  second  interview.  Mr.  Beare  did  not  call  upon 
the  Bishop  more  than,  once,  to  know  whether  he  denied  the  statements  of  his  • 
wife  1 

Either  Mr.  Beare,. or  some  one  in  his  behalf,  asked  a  question,  or  made  a  sug- 
gestion, relative  to  the  Bishop's  intending  to  impute  falsehood  to,  or  question  the 
veracity  of,  Mrs.  Beare.  But  I  do  not  recollect  anything  said  about  the  statement 
of  Mrs.  Beare  in  that  connection. 

23.  ^as  that  suggestion  or  question  made. more  than  once  during  the  conver- 
sation *  .  ;.  . 

It  may  have  been  ;  though  my  impression  is  that  it  was  not ;  the  interview  hav- 
ing been  very  short. 

24.  Did  you  feel  ot  express  displeasure  af  the  manner  in' which  the  Bishop  re- 
plied to  that  question  ? 

I  felt  displeasure  at  the  tune,  and  may  have  expressed  it ;  though  I  do  not  ro- 
collect ;  I  said  nothing  certainly  in  the  Bishop's  presence 

16 


122 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

9.  Did  you  then  feel,  or  express,  or  have  you  at  any  time  since,  entertained  or 
expressed  any  opinion  adverse  to  the  innocence  of  the  Bishop,  of  the  charges  re- 
ferred to  in  the  two  interviews  you  have  spoken  of?  (Objected  to  and  modified.) 

In  any  expression  of  displeasure  you  may  .have  made  at  the  manner  of  the  Bish- 
op, on  the  second  interview,  could  you  have  meant  to  convey,  or  did  you  convey, 
any  opinion  adverse  to  the  innocence  of  the  Bishop  in  respect  to  the  charges  re- 
ferred to  ?  (Objected  to  and  modified.) 

9.  Did  your  displeasure,  as  stated  at  the  conclusion  of  the  second  interview, 
arise  from  any  doubt  at  that  time,  of  the  Bishop's  innocence  of  the  alleged 
charges  1 

(Objected  to,  and  objection  unanimously  overruled.) 

It  is  somewhat  hard  to  recollect  the  mingled  emotions  of  an  occasion  of  excite- 
ment go  long  ago.  I  have  to  say  that  my  displeasure  arose,  chiefly  because  I  thought 
that  the  answer  of  the  Bishop  might  seem  to  give  a  color  to  an  infamous  charge  ; 
though  my  own  act,  conjointly  with  the  gentlemen  with  me,  immediately  after  we 
left  the  Bishop,  shows  that  I  could  not  have  believed  in  his  criminality.  That  act 
was  the  agreement  between  us  that  the  matter  ought  to  be  considered  as  finally 
settled,  and  that  we  should  not  speak  of  it  again. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  to  meet  at  7  o'clock  the  same  evening. 
Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Friday,  December  21th,  1844. 
7  o'clock,  P.  M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  -North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop 
of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese. 

The  .examination  of  the  Rev.  E.  Y.  HIGBEE,  D.  D.,  was  continued. 

By  tlie  Court. 

By  Bishop  Doane. 

1.  You  said  in  your  direct  examination  in  answer  to  the  question,  What  was  the 
language  and  manner,  or  both,  of  the  Bishop  in  assenting  to  the  proposal  to  see  Mr. 
Beare  the  next  day  ]  "  I  hardly  know  how  to  answer  that  question,  as  I  was  under 
the  impression,  until  a  few  days  ago,  that  the  Bishop  made  the  proposal  himself, 
meaning  by  that  that  you  were  under  that  impression  until  corrected  by  Dr.  Milnor." 
If  such  a  proposition  had  been  made  to  the  Bishop,  and  not,-  as  you  yourself  tup- 
posed,  by  him,  do  you  think  you  could  have  forgotten  the  Bishop's  reception  of  it  ? 

I  do  not  believe  that  I  should  have  forgotten  the  Bishop's"  opposition  to  it,  had 
he  opposed  it. 

2.  Did  not  the  Bishop,  as  yon  may  now  recollect,  himself  say  that  if  he  saw 
Mr.  Beare,  he  thought  the  thing  could  be  explained,  or  words  to  that  effect,  and 
did  not  Dr.  Muhlenherg  reply,  I  will  bring  Mr.  Beare  ? 

I  am  under  the  impression  that  in  effect,  the  Bishop  did  say  some  such  thing, 
which  led  to  my  impression,  that  the  proposition  originated  with  the  Bishop. 

3.  Are  you  certain,  now,  that  the  proposition  did  not  originate  with  the  Bishop  T 
No ;  I  am  not  positive  from  rny  own  recollection,  except  as  my  memory  haa 

been  refreshed,  as  I  believe,  by  Dr.  Milnor :  who  did  not  seek  to  refresh  my  mem- 
ory ;  but  it  was  a  casual  observation  between  us,  in  which  we  spoke  of  our  com- 
mon recollections  on  the  subject. 


123 

By  Bishop  Ives. 

4.  Was  any  thing  said  at  the  "second  interview  which  must  have  revived  in  the 
mind  of  the  Bishop  the  particulars  of  alleged  indiscretions,  as  stated  at  the  first? 

I  do  not  recollect  that  any  thing  of  the  kind  was  said. 

5.  Did,  or  did  not,  the  answer  of  the  Bishop  at  the  second  interview,  to  the  in- 
quiry whether  he  intended  to  question  the  veracity  of  Mrs.  Beare,  show  that  his 
mind  was  rather  fixed  upon  the  impurities  alleged,  than  upon  the  particular  state- 
ments made '? 

I  do  not  recollect  any  thing  which  indicated  that  the  Bishop  referred  to  the  par- 
ticular statements. 

6.  Did  you  understand  the  Bishop  .as  admitting,  on-  the  second  interview,  what 
he  had  denied  on  the  first  ? 

No ;  I  cannot  say  that  I  did. 
By  Bishop  Me  Tlvaine. 

7.  Did  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  on  the  first  interview,  when  he  slated  the  allegations 
made  by  Mrs.  Beare  against  the  Bishop,  go  into  particulars  concerning  the  acts 
complained  of? 

It  appeared  to  be  his  object  to  do  so,  but  his  statement  was  confused. 

8.  Can  you  remember,  now,  any  of  the  particulars  of  his  statement,  and  if  any, 
what  ? 

I  cannot  recollect  them  as  stated  by  him.  The  only  recollection  I  have,  was  an 
allusion  of  which  I  spoke  this  morning  ;  the  allusion  was  to  an  allegation  of 
Mrs.  Beare,  that  the  Bishop  had  put  his  hand  upon  her  bosom. 

By  Bishop  Lee. 

9.  Did  Mr.  Beare  say  any  thing,  and  what,  at  the  second  interview  1 

Mr.  Beare  said,  certainly,  very  little.  I  recollect  nothing  that  he  did  say,  un- 
less it  was  he  who  made  the  suggestion,  or  asked  the  question  of  the  Bishop,  rela- 
tive to  the  Bishop's  impeachment  of  his  wife's  veracity. 

By  Bishop  Johns. 

10.  Did  the  Bishop,  at  the  interview  on  the  first  day,  deny  the  particulars  of  the 
charges,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg  ? 

I  understood  the  Bishop  as  replying  to  the  general  charge  of  impropriety>  or 
impurity,  entering  into  no  particulars,  so  far  as  I  remember. 

11.  Did  you  regard  that  as  a  reply  to  Dr.  Muhlenberg's  statement".'? 

I  regarded  it  as  a  general  reply  to  the  allegations  made.  I  supposed  then,  and 
still  suppose,  that  the  Bishop  derived  his  knowledge  of  the  allegations  chiefly  from 
Dr.  Milnor.  I  regarded  it  as  a  reply  to  the  allegations  made  both  by  the  one  and 
the  other. 

12.  Did  you  consider  all  the  allegations,  as  stated  by  both  of  the  gentlemen,  as 
denied  by  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ? 

I  certainly  regarded  all  the  allegations,  so  far  as  impurity  or  impropriety  were 
charged,  as  denied  by  the  Bishop. 

13.  At  the  interview  of  the  second  day,  do  you  remember  whether  there  was 
any  similar  denial  of  the  same  allegations  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  ] 

On  the  second  day  there  were  no  allegations  made,  in  general,  or  in  detail.  In 
the  Bishop's  expression  of  regret  that  anything  had  occurred  which  could  give  pain 
to  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Beare,  he  again,  I  think,  alluded  to  his  paternal  feeling  for  them,  but 
disavowed  any  intentional  offence,  or  any  intentional  impropriety ;  and  again,  in 
what  the  Bishop  said  in  relation  to  Mrs.  Beare's  veracity  or  motives,  I  under- 
stood the  Bishop  to  say  she  was  mistaken. 

14.  Did  you  regard  the  Bishop  as  intending  to  say,  that  Mrs.  Beare  was  mis- 
taken as  to  his  motives,  or  as  to  the  facts  as  alleged  ? 

•I  regarded  the  Bishop  as  intending  to  say,  that  she  was  mistaken  as  to  the  gen- 
eral charge  of  impropriety,  and  mistaken  as  to  the  facts,  so  far  as  they  had  been 
communicated  to  him,  and  involved  the  charge  of  impurity  and  impropriety. 
By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

15.  You  have  said  in  a  late  answer  that  you  supposed,  at  the  first  interview,  and 
do  still  suppose,  that  the  Bishop  derived  his  knowledge  chiefly  from  Dr.  Milnor ; 
was  his  statement  of  Mrs.  Beare's  allegations,  or  was  Dr.  Muhlenberg's  the  more 
particular  and  distinct ! 


124 

Dr.  MilnorV  statement  was  quite  distinct,  but  not  a  very  particular  one  ;  so  far 
as  I  recollect,  it  was  general,  and  not  particular.  It  was  much  more  distinct  than 
Dr.  Muhlenberg's,  and  as  Dr.  Muhlenberg's  was  not  a  distinct  statement,  I  am 
unable  to  compare  the  two  as  to  particularity. 

16.  You  have  said  that  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  in  his  statement,  did  speak  of  the  par- 
ticular statement  of  Mrs.  Beare,  as  to  the  Bishop's  placing  his  hand  on  her  bosom  ; 
did  the  Bishop  deny  that  particular  of  Mrs.  Beare's  statement  1 

I  have  said  that  Dr.  Muhlenberg' made  an  allusion  to  it.  1  understood  it,  I  pre- 
sume, from  the  fact  of  my  having  been  made  acquainted  with  the  particulars  before 
we  went  to  the  Bishop's.  I  have  no  evidence  that  the  Bishop  understood  the  par- 
ticulars as  attempted  to  be  stated  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg.  I  understood  him  to  reply, 
to  the  general  allegation  of  improprieties. 

By  Bishop  IVBS. 

17.  Did  you-  understand  Mr.  Beare  as  feeing  satisfied  with  the  explanation  of  the 
Bishop  at  the  interview  referred  to  ?    . 

'  Mr.  Beare,  I  think,  did  not  say  whether  he  was  or  not.     He  shook  hands  with 
the  Bishop  at  parting,  and  the  parting  appeared  to  be  mutually  kind  and  friendly. 
'By  Bishop  Whittingham. 

18.  Do  you  recollect  whether  any  conversation  passed  between  the  Bishop  and 
Dr.  Mnhlenberg  while  the  latter  was  making  his  statement  in  the  first  interview  ^ 

I  do  not  recollect  that  fact ;  such  a  conversation  may  have  taken  place,  but  I  do 
not  recollect  it.  • 

19.  You  spoke,  in  your  direct  examination,  of  a  paper  which  Dr.  Muhlenberg 
drew  from  his  pocket,  as  you  thought,  when  he  made  his  statement ;  did  he  appear 
to  you  to  read  from  that  paper  1 

No,  he  did  not.  The  paper  appeared  to  contain  short  notes,  which  he  used  to 
refresh  his  memory. 

By  Bishop  Henshaw. 

.20.  You  have  stated  that  you  considered  the  Bishop's  denial  at  the  first  inter- 
view to  relate  to  a  general  allegation -of  impurity  or  impropriety.  Did  Dr.  Milnor, 
or  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  or  yourself,  make  any  such  general  allegation  at  that  inter- 
view, or  was  the  allegation  Deferred  to  by  either  or  all  of  you  at  that  interview 
confined  to  the  .specific  allegations  of  Mrs.  Beare  ? 

I  stated  that  the  Bishop's  reply  related  to  the  general  allegation  made  on  that 
occasion,  by  which  I  meant  a  general  charge  of  impropriety  in  connection  with  the 
case  of  Mrs.  Beare.  • 

By  Bishop  Polk. 

21.  You"  have  •  stated  that  you  did  not  know  whether  Mr.  Beare  was  satisfied 
with  the  explanation  of  the  Bishop  or  not.     Wer,e  you,  and  the  gentlemen  who  ac- 
companied you- to  the  Bishop,  satisfied  with  the  explanation  ? 

I  have  stated  that  I  do  not-  recollect  whether  Mr.  Beare  said  he  was  satisfied  or 
not..  In  regard  to  my  own.  satisfaction,  and.  that  of  the  gentlemen  with  me,  I  can 
only  say,  that  we  were  so  far  satisfied  of  the  absence  of  criminality,  that  we  agreed 
that  the  matter  ought  to  be  considered  as  then  and  there  settled. 

By  Bishop  .Mcllvajne. 

22.  Did  Mr.  Beare  concur  in  that  conclusion  ? 

I  do  not  speak  of  the  conclusion  of  the  absence  of  criminality  as  having  been  ex- 
pressed in  so  many  words,  but  of  the. agreement  that  the  matter  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered as  then  and  there  settled  ;  at  which  agreement  I  think  Mr,  Beare  was 
present,  though  I  am  not  perfectly  certain. 

23.  When  you  speak  of  the  concurrence  of  the  other  gentlemen  with  you  as  to 
the  absence  of  criminality,  do  you  mean  only  that  you  inferred,<such  to  have  been 
their  conclusion,  from  the  fact  of  the  agreement,  that  the  patier  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered as  then  and  there  settled  ? 

So  far  as  the  other  gentlemen  are  concerned,  I  mean  it  as  an  inference  from 
the  fact  of  that  agreement;  because  I,  as  an  honest  man,  could  not,  with  a  belief 
of  the  Bishop's  criminality,  have  consented  to  allow  it  to  be  settled  in  that  way. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 
25.  When  and  where  was  the  agreement  just  referred  to,  made? 


126 

It  was  immediately  after  we  left  the  Bishop's,  before  we  parted,  in  the  street. 

26.  Did  you  converse  on  the  subject  before  the  agreement  was  made? 
There  was  very  little  conversation  passed  between  us,  I  think. 

27.  In  that  conversation,  or  in  making  the  agreement  referred  to,  or  at  any  time 
before  you  separated,  did  either  you    or    Dr.  Milnor,  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  or  Mr. 
Beare,  say  that  you  believed  the  Bishop  innocent,  or  any  words  to  that  effect?.' 

Ido  not  recollect  that  it  was  said  by  any  of  us. 

28.  Did  either  of  the  gentlemen  named,  including  yourself,  say  any  thing  at  that 
-time  unfavorable  to  the  Bishop ? 

I  do  not  remember.  I  was,  as  I  stated  this  morning,  displeased  with  certain 
parts  of  the  Bishop's  manner  at  the  interview,  and  may  have  expressed  if, 
though  I  'do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

29.  Did  you  not  say  at  that  time,  that  you  believed  the  Bishop  guilty,  or  words 
to  that  effect  \ 

No. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

10.  Was  the  purpose  of  the  interview  on  .the  first  day  fully  completed  before 
the  suggestion  as.  to  Mr.  Beare's  meeting  the  Bishop  the    next  day,  or  was  it- 
suspended  upon  that  suggestion  being  made,  to  be  renewed  the  next  day  ? 

The  object  proposed  in  going  to  the  Bishop  was,  as  1  understood  the  matter, 
accomplished  ;  it  beipg  simply  to  state  to  the  Bishop  the  report  that  we  had 
•heard,  and  receive  his  explanation. 

11.  Was  it  any  part  of  your  purpose  to-  suggest  a  meeting  with  Mr.  Beare  in 
.your  presence  !  • 

I  qever  thought  of  it,  and  I  do  not  think  any  thing  was  said  of  it  by  the  other 
gentlemen. 

12.  On  the  second  day  was  any  suggestion  made  before  you  parted  .from  the 
Bishop,  either   on  the  part  of  Mr.   Beare,  or    any'  of  the    other  gentlemen,  in- 
cluding yourself,  as  to  a  necessity  for  .further  explanation  with  the  Bishop? 

I  heard  no  such  suggestion  made,  and  I  made  none.  . ' 

13.  When  did  Dr.  Milnor  recall  to  your  recollection,  as  you  have  stated,  the 
circumstances  of  these  interviews,  or  any  of  them  ? 

I  had  a  conversation  with  Dr.  Milnor  on  the  general  subject,  during  the  General 
Convention  in  Philadelphia;  I  do  not  recoHect  precisely  what  passed  then.  J 
.had  subsequently  a  conversation  with  him  on  the  first  or  second  day  of  this 
trial,  when  we  met  casually.  ; 

14.  When  you  speak  of  a  conversation  withr  Dr.  Milnor  on  the  general  subject, 
do  you  mean  the  subject  generally  of  charges  against  the   Bishop,  or  the  subject ' 
of  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare  ? 

I  mean  the  s.ubject  of  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare.  . 

15.  Did  you  then  understand  that  'that  case 'was.  to/be  included  in  the  charges 
against  the  Bishop  ?    •     '. 

I  did.     I  understood  so  from  Dr.-MiJnor.  • 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

30.  Who  sought  the  interview  in   Philadelphia  on  this  subject,  you  or  Dr. 
Milnor?  '    . 

'  'Dr.  Milnor— -in  Philadelphia.' 

31.  Did  you  then  say  to  Dr.  Milnor,  or  at  any  other  time,  that  you  had  forgot- 
ten nearly  the  occurrences  in  the  interviews  spoken  of,  or  words  to  that  effect? 

I  do  'not  recoHect  whether  it  was  in  Philadelphia  or  here  ;    but  I  remember 
stating  to  him  and  to  others,  that  after  our  second  interview  with  the  Bishop,  as 
we  regarded  the  matt,er  settled,  I  had  dismissed  it  from  my' mind,  and  now  found   ' 
difficulty  in. recalling  the  order  of  the  occurrences,  'or  something  to  that  effect. 

32.  That  statement  I  presume  was  true  ? 

That  statement  was  true.     Dr.  Milnor  said  the  same  thing. 

33.  I  understood  you  to  «ay  substantially  that  Dr.  Muhlenberg  intended  to  make 


126 

.^\ •  «  ,  _  ^_.  ^.^  <-«.^«. ^_    > 

a  particular  statement  of  the  alleged  improprieties  of  the  Bishop  in  his  demeanor 
towards  Mrs.  Beare  ;  can  you  now  say  that  the  Bishop  did  not  understand  the 
particulars  which  Dr.  Muhlenberg  endeavored  to  .state  ? 

1  certainly  cannot  say  that  he  did  or  did  not  understand  them. 

34.  If  he  did  understand  the  particulars  stated,  or  attempted  to  be  stated,  by 
Dr.  Muhlenberg,  did  he  or  not  deny  the  truth  of  those  particulars  * 

Objected  to,  and  modified  as  follows : 

Were  the  terms  of  the  Bishop's  denial  such  that  if  he  did  understand  the  par- 
ticulars, his  answer  would  have  amounted  to  a  denial  of  them  ] 

This  was  again  objected  to,  but  the  objection  was  overruled — The  Bish- 
ops of  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops 
of  Rhode  Island  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  overruling  it. 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina.  New  Jersey,  and  Maryland,  dissenting ; 

the  Bishop  of  South  Carolina  declining  to  vote. 

i 

I  understood  the  Bishop  to  deny  the  charge  of  impropriety  or  impurity.  I  am 
unable  to  express  the  opinion  which  appears  to  be  demanded  by  the  question. 

35.  Can  you  now  recollect  any  more  particularly  than  you  have  stated,  the  terms 
of  the  Bishop's  denial  1 

I  have  stated  the  whole  matter  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 

16.  Had  you  more  than  one  interview  with  Dr.  Milnor  on  this  subject  in  Philv 
delphia  ? 

I  believe  not. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 
•  W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


Saturday,  December  28th,  1844, 
half-past  nine  o'clock,  A.  M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Western. New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ; 
the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese.  . 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Respondent  read,  to  the  Court  the  affidavit  of  the 
Rev.  C.  M.  Butler,  a  letter  of  the  Rev.  C.  M.  Butler  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  Wm. 
Meade,  D.  D.,  explanatory  of  Mr.  Butler's  affidavit,  but  not  in  evidence  ; 
the  affidavits  of  Jane  O.  'Rudderow  and  Helen  M.  Rudderow  ;  and  the 
affidavit  of  the  Rev,  Henry  M.  Beare. 


127 

Copy  of  the  affidavit  of  the  Rev.  Clement  M.  Butler,  in  the  matter  of 
the  Presentment  against  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benj.  T.  Onderdonk : 

I,  Clement  Moore  Butler,  testify,  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  to 
the  following  facts,  which  occurred  on  the  day  and  night  previous  to  my  ordination 
as  a  Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  in  the-  spring  of  the  year  1837  ;  the 
precise  date  of  which  ordination  can  be  ascertained  by  a  reference  to  the  Journal  of 
the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  for  that  year. 

The  day  previous  to  my  ordination,  I  and  my  wife,  and  Mr.  Peck,  a  member  of 
my  then  parish  of  Syracuse,  went  in  a  carriage  to  Ithaca,  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  to  Syracuse,  the  distance  being  about 
50  miles.  We  left  Ithaca  about  one  hour  before  sunset,  the  Bishop  and  my  wife 
being  in  the  back  seat,  and  myself  and  Mr.  Peck,  who  drove  the  carriage,  on  the 
front  seat.  Very  soon  after  leaving  Ithaca,  it  was  evident  to  me  that  the 'Bishop, 
had  been  drinking  wine  or  other  stimulant  to  such  .a  degree  as  greatly  to  elevate 
his  spirits,  as  also  to  affect  his  speech.  I  observed,  also,  that  he  had  his  arm  about 
my  wyife,  and  occasionally  pressed  her  to  him  in  a  way  which  seemed  to  me  im- 
proper and  indelicate.  She  felt  it  to  be  so,  and  removed  his  hand  two  or  three 
times,  in  a  way  that  she  thought  would  prevent  his  doing  it  again  ;  and  finding  that 
it  did  not  prevent  him,  the  last  time  she  removed  his  hand  she  endeavored  to  re- 
call him  to  a  sense  of  his  impropriety  of  conduct,  by  making  a  remark  to  the  effect 
that  that  hand  was  a  sacred  thing,  which  she  regarded  with  great  interest,  as  hav- 
ing been  laid  upon  her  head  in  confirmation,  and  upon  the  heads  of  so  many  or- 
dained to  the  ministry,  and  so  soon  to  be  laid  upon  the  head  of  her  husband.  After 
it  became  dark,  the  conversation  of  the  Bishop,  and  the  fumes  of  the  carriage, 
convinced  me  more  fully  that  he  was  under  the  influence  of  wine  or  other  stimu- 
lant— a  conviction  which  was  confirmed  when  my  wife  touched  me  upon  the 
shoulder,  and  whispered  to  me  that  she  could  not  sit  there,  and  must  come  and  sit 
with  me.  She  quickly  changed  her  seat,  and  sat  in  my  lap,  in  great  agitation  and 
distress.  When  we  stopped  for  the  first  time  at  a  tavern  to  rest  the  -horses,  and  we 
got  out,  she  told  me  that  the  Bishop's  conduct  had  become  grossly  improper;  that, 
as  she  supposed,  scarcely  knowing  what  he  did,  he  began  to  pull  up  her  clothes. 
Then  it  was  that  she  immediately  changed  her  seat.  Under  the  excitement  of  the 
moment,  in  great  agony  of  mind,  I  told  her  that  I  should  go  to  the  Bishop  and 
tell  him  that  I  would  not  ride  with  him,  that  I'would  not  be  ordained  by  him,  and 
that  I  would  expose  him. 

She  literally  held  me  back  from  going,  and  it  was  from  regard  to  her  feelings, 
and  from  realizing  the  force  of  the  remark,  that  I  was  not  in  a  fit  state  of  mind  to 
speak  to  him  as  1  ought,  that  I  refrained. 

During  the  greater  part  of  the  remainder  of  the  journey,  the  Bishop  slept  or 
dozed  ;  and  Mr.  Peck  and  myself  and  wife  occupied  the  front  seat  all  the  way  into 
the  village  of  Syracuse.  I  was  ordained  that  morning,  at  a  service  which  com- 
menced at  1 1  o'clock.  Whether  or  no  Mr.  Peck  observed  the  condition  of  ti:o 
Bishop,  who  sat  immediately  behind  him,  or  conjectured  the  reason  why  my  wife 
left  the  seat,  I  cannot  tell,  as  I  never  conversed  with  him  upon  the  .subject. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add,  that  during  my  ride  home,  my  mind  revolved  the  ques- 
tion, under  the  greatest,  agitation  and  distress,  whether  1  ought  to  refuse  to  be  or- 
dained by  the  Bishop,  and  give  an  account  of  his  conduct  to  the  Standing  Commit- 
tee. I  confess  that  it  did  seem  to  me  to  be  my  duty,  but  as  I  was  called  upon  to 
decide  hastily,  as  I  was  inexperienced  in  the  ministry,  as  ]  shrank  frum  publicity, 
and  from  the  exposure  of  one  occupying  so  high  a  station  in  the  Church,  and  above 
all,  as  I  was  so  indignant  at  the  insult,  that  knowing  I  should  act  under  tha  most 
intense  excitement,  I  feared  I  should  act  rashly  and  improperly,  T  resolved  to  say 
nothing.  I,  therefore,  did  the  greatest  violence  to  my  feelings  that  I  hav«  ever 
done,  and  was  ordained  ;  and  when  the  day  closed,  I  felt  it  to  have  been,  as  I  feel 
it  now,  the  most  painful  one  of  my  life.  That  I  have  not  since  instituted  any  action, 
has  arisen  from  a  feeling  that  the  proper  time  had  been  allowed  to  pass  ;  and  also, 
no  doubt,  from  a  shrinking  from  the  making  public  of  an  event  to  me  and  my  wife 
so  painful. 

On  the  day  of  rny  ordination  I  declined  to  dine  with  the  Bishop,  on  the  ground 


128 

of  fatigue  and  illness,  under  which  I  was  really  suffering.  My  wife  went  to  her 
bed,  and  was  confined  to  it  and  her  chamber  for  several  week.?,  from  the  effect,  aa 
she  believed,  and  I  believe,  of  her  great  agitation  and  distress, — a  sickness  which 
I  have  always  thought  was  a  permanent  injury  to  her  delicate  constitution-.  This 
event  was  the  more  distressing  to  her,  that 'she  had,  until  that  time,  ever  regarded 
the  Bishop  with  the  greatest  reverence  and  respect,  as  her  father's  friend  and  her 
own- spiritual  father  and  guide. 

(Signed,)        CLEMENT  MOORE  BUTLER. 
Sworn  and  subscribed,  ihe  16th  day  of) 
October,  A.  D.  1844,  before  me,       $ 

(Signed,)         PETER  HAY,  Alderman. 

.  I  certify  the  above  to  be  a  true  and  faithful  copy,  made  and  collated 
by  me,  . 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk  of  the  Court. 
Dec.  21,  1844. 

•Copy  of  a  letter  of  the  Rev.  Clement  M.'  Butler,  (under  date  of  Nov.  1, 
1844,)  relative  to  his  affidavit  in  the  matter  of  the  Presentment  against  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Benj.  T .  Onderdonk,  D.  D. 

[  COPY.  ] 

BOSTON,  Nov.   1,  '44. 
'RT.  REV.  AND  DEAR  SIR — 

The  circumstances  under  which  my  deposition  with  regard  to  Bishop  Benj. 
Onderdonk's  treatment  of  my-  wife  was  made,  are,  I  believe,  well  known  to  you. 
I  went  to  Philadelphia  without  any  knowledge  that  I  should  be  called  upon  to  state 
the  facts  ;  and,  therefore,  when  I  was  suddenly  called  upon  for  my  testimony,  not 
having  the  opportunity  of  conferring  with  my  wife,  I  was  under  the  necessity  of 
hastily  recalling  the  main  circumstances  as  best  I  could.  I  had  never  made 
the  particulars  of  that  trying  scene  the  subject  of  conversation  with  my  wife,  and 
could,  therefore,  only  refer  to  my  own  impressions  of  it — somewhat  dimmer  in 
some  of  the  details,  but  painfully  vivi3  with  regard  to  the  main  facts.  Upon  yes- 
terday reading  the  deposition  to  my  wife,  I  found  that  in  some  slight  particulars  I 
had  misapprehended  her,  and  that  in  some  others  her  recollection  corrected  my 
own.  My  anxiety  that  the  case,  precisely  as  it  occurred — no  better  nor  worse — 
should  be  before  you,  induces  me  to  make  the  correction  of  the  details.  I  should 
have  done  this— repulsive  as  the- task  is — before  now,  had  I  known  where  to  di- 
rect you.  I  now  write  in  some  uncertainty,  but  a  friend  in  New  York,  to  whom  I 
inclose  it,  will  be  able,  1  hope,  by  inquiry,  to  find  where  you  are. 

My  wife  fully  confirms,  by  her  recollection,  my  statement  of  the  Bishop's  in- 
toxication— as  she  does  not  hesitate  to  call  it.  In  what  she  said  when  she  re- 
moved the  Bishop's  hand,  she  did  not,  as  I  supposed,  include  the  remark  that  his 
hand  had  been  laid  upon,  her  head  in  confirmation,  as  she  was  not  confirmed  by  him. 
That  which  caused  her  to  leave  her  seat  was  not  precisely  as  I  have  stated  it,  but 
similar.  It  seems  that  he  placed  his  hand  upon  her  breast  and  pressed  it.  She 
hastily  removed  it,  and  he  again  placed  it  upon  her  leg,  and  in  a  very  improper 
way  squeezed  it,  and  in  so  doing  slightly  raised  her  clothes.  Then  it  was  that 
ehe  struck  it  away,  as  she  expresses -it,  and  immediately  whispered  to  me  that  she 
would  sit  with  me.  My  own  strong  impression  was,  and  'is,  that  we  rode  all  the 
way  into  Syracuse  with  the  Bishop  alone  on  the  .back  seat,  and  the  three  in  front. 
She  states  it,  however,  as  her  distinct  recollection,  that  some'  time  before  we  en- 
tered into  Syracuse,- (after  it  became'  light.)  I  sat  with  the  Bishop  on  the  back. 
As  I  do  not  claim  a  distinct  recollection  of  this  point,  and  she  does.  I  suppose  her 
to  be  in  the  right.  Lastlv,  with'regard  to  her  sickness,  I  find- from  her  that  she 
left  her  room  about  a  week  after  the  event,  and  after  another  week's  feebly  keep- 
ing up,  she  was  taken  very  ill  and  .continued- so  for  several  weeks.  I  had  con- 
founded the  two  attacks  as  one  in  time,  as  I  had  always  believed  her  sickness  at 


... l29 

the  time  to  have  ofigiaated  hi  the  excitement  and  distress  of  that  night.  Indeed, 
nay  recollection  of  e'rents  in  detail — always  imperfect — is  in  this  case  made  the 
more  dim  by  the  excitement  of  my  mind  in  dwelling  upon  the  fact  of  the  Bishop's 
condition,  and  his  insult  of  my  wife,  and  the  absorbing  character  of  my  medita- 
tions as  to  what  coutse  I  ought  to  pursue. 

I  do.  not  think  1?hat  these  particulars  are  of  moment,  but  I  am  anxious  that  the 
statements  should  be  accurately  correct.  -  ... 

-  On  reading  this  over  to  my  wife,  she  says  it  is  perfectly  correct,  according  to 
her  recollection.  •..'_'•  ,  - 

Respectfully  and  truly, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  C.  M.  BUTLER. 

I  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true  an.d  faithful  copy,  made  by  my  hand, 
this  21st  of  December,  1844. 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM; 

Clerk  of  Court,  fyc.  fyc. 

Copy  of  the  affidavits  of  Jane  O.  Rudderow,  and  Helen  M.  Rudderow, 
in  the  matter  of  the  Presentment  against  the  Right  Reverend  Benjamin  T. 
Onderdonk,  D.  D. :  . 

NEW  YORK,  Oct.  11,  1844. 

•I  testify  that  between  the  month  of  May  and  July,  A.  D.  1841,  Benjamin 
Tied  well  Onderdomk,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  th.e  Diocese  of  New  York,  visited  St. 
James's  Church,  Hamilton  square,  New  York  city.  A't  the  close  of  the  .morning 
service,  he  came  to  my  brother  John  Rudderow's  house,  in  a  one-horse  four- 
wheeled  carriage,  with  seats  for  four  persons.  My  sister  Helen  Maria  Rudderow 
came  to  our  chamber, -where  I  S3'  with  a  female  cousin.  My  sister  Helen  burst 
•into  tears,  and  in  the  greatest  agitation  told  u§  that  she'  had  been  grossly  insulted  in 
the  carriage  ;  that  had  it  not  been  for  exposing  the  Bishop  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Richmond, 
who  was  driving,  on  the  front  seat,  she  would  have  sprung  from  the  carriage  ;  that 
she  pushed  his  hands  away  fvorn  her  bosom — :and  very  low. down  in  her  bosom  ;  and 
then  begged  me  to  go  down  to  the  parlo*,  where  the  Bishop  was,  lest  my  brother 
should  discover  the  trouble.  I  went  down.  He  was  standing  by  the  centre-table.  He 
took  my  hand.  I  sat  down  on  the  centre'of  the  sofa.  He  sat  down  near  me  ;  and  in  an 
instant,  as  quick  as  thought,  he  thrust  his  hand  into  my  bosom,  very  low.  I  start- 
ed from  him  to  the  end  of  the  sofa';  he  .followed  and  repeated  the  insolence  ;  at  that 
moment  footsteps  were  heard,  and  through  the  already  open  door  entered  my  sister- 
in-law,  Mrs. 'John  Rudderow,  when  he  sprang  to  the  other  side  of  the  sofa;  and 
I  cannot  remember  what  immediately  followed.  My  mother  soon  came  in;  dinner 
was  served,  and  we  hardly  spoke  to  him  at 'the  table  ;  for  which  our  mother  after- 
ward3  reproved  us.  After  dinner,  rny  sister,  and  mother,  and  sister-in-law  being 
still  iii  the  room,  I  went  to  the  window. and  lifted  the  ghade  to  see  if  it  still  rained,  a* 
we  'were  determined  to  go  at  once  to  Sunday-school,  to  get  rid  of  him,  though  we  knew 
there  would  be  no  children  at  the  Sunday-school;  for  it  rained  very  hard.  We  left  him 
almost  unceremoniously  ;  and  once  afterwards?  (on  a  matter  of  business,)  with  Miss 
R.  R.,  (not  my  sister,  who  refused  to  gOf)  thinking  that  with  a  stranger^  and  saying 
that  we  would  be  safe,  we  were  compelled  to  escape  from  the  door  in  the  utmost 
haste.  I  should  have  stated  that  he  repeated  his  insolent  behavior,  doing  the 
name  thing,  under  the  window-shade.  I  thrust  his  hand  against  the  window,  and 
pushed  out.  My  mother  afterwards  asked  me,  "  Jane,  what  did  the  Bishop  do  to 
you,. that  made  you  look  so  when  you  came  from  the  window]  for  I  can  read  your 
face  like  a  book;  and  you  looked  so  deeply  mortified."  His  whole  visit  at  our 
house  'did  not  exceed  two  or  three  hours ;  as  Mr.  Richmond  called  to  take  him  to 
St.  Michael's  Church,  Bloomingdale.  Dinner  and  all,  we  were  not  in  the  same 
house  with  him  more  than  an  hour  and  a  half.  The  Rey.  Mr.  Dowdney  several 
times  requested  us  to  have  the  Bishop  at  dinner,  on' his  visit,  June  18th,  1843,  bat 

17 


130 

I  answered,  (and  Helen  also,)  "  He  never  shall  dine  at  our  house  again ;  or  if  so, 
we  will  not  be  present." 

(Signed)       JANE  O.  RUDDEROW. 
Sworn  to  before  me,  > 
Oct.  12,  1844.        $ 

(Signed)         JAMES  HARPER,  Mayor. 

I  testify  that  every  word  of  the  above  is  true.  He  grossly  insulted  me  in  the 
carriage.  I  should  prefer  saying  that  Mr.  Dowdney  hinted  at  our  having  the 
Bishop  at  dinner. 

(Signed)    .     HELEN  M.  RUDDEROW. 
Sworn  to,  this  12th  day  of   1 
Oct.,  1844,  before  me,       J» 

(Signed)        JOHN  Me  CAHILL,  Notary  Public. 

I  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  original,  duly  collated,  and 
found  correct. 

WIL.LIAM  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk  of  the  Court.     - 
Dec.  21,  1844. 

Copy  of  the  Affidavit  of  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare. 

CITY   OF    PHILADELPHIA,  SS. 

I,  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare,  minister  of  Zion  Church,  Little  Neck,  Long 
Island,  New  York,  do  depose  to  the  following  facts  : — 

In  the  month  of  July,  A.D.  184,2,  the  Right  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
Bishop,  of  New  York,  came  to  my  parish  to  hold  a  Confirmation,  I  having  charge, 
at  that  time,  of  two  places  of  worship,  viz  -.  Zion  Church,  and  Whitestone  Chapel. 

On  the  morning  of  the  appointed  day,  the- Bishop  went  from  my  house  to  Zion 
Church,  and  there  held  a  Confirmation  ;  the  services  being  over,  the  Bishop  re- 
turned to  my  house,  in  my  two-seated  wagoh,  in  company  with  my  wife  and 
mother,  and,  as  I  believe,  with  my  young  nephew,  a  lad  then  of  11  or  12  years  of 
age. 

The  Bishop  and  my  wife  occupied  the  back  seat,  my  mother  and  nephew  were 
on  the  front  seat,  with  their  backs  to,  the  Bishop';  my  nephew  was  driving.  I 
walked  home,  (about  a  mile,)  and  as  soon  as  I  reached  home,  my  wife,  in  some. 
agitation,  took  me  to  her  room,  and  then  informed  me  that  she  thought  the  Bishop 
was  too  familiar,  and  had  taken  liberties  with  her  which  she  did  not  like ;  that  on 
her  ride  home  from  church  the  Bishep  had  put  his  arm  around  her,  and  drawn  her 
close  to  him,  while  with  his  hand  he  had  felt  her  bosom ;  that  she  had  quietly  re- 
moved his  hand,  and  endeavored  to  draw  herself  away  from  him  as  .far  as  the  seat 
would  allow,  in  which  she  succeeded.  I,  at  that  time,  had  heard  nothing  wf  similar 
acts  of  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop,  and  therefore  told  my  wife  that  per- 
haps she  had  misunderstood  his  motives ;  but  she  persisted  in  her  belief,  that  his 
motives  were  impure. 

In  the  afternoon  the  Bishop.wentto  hold  a  Confirmation  in  the  other  church  under 
my  charge,  viz.,  at  Whitestone  Chapel,  my  wife,  privately  to  me,  declining  to  ride 
in  the  same  carriage  with  him.  My  wife,  accordingly,  rode  to  the  chapel  with  my 
brother,  Thomas  M.  Beare,  in  his  carriage  or  buggy,  while  the  Bishop  rode  in  my 
barouche-wagon,  with  my  nephew  and  myself. 

The  services  being  ended,  we  all  returned  in  the  same  vehicle  in  which  we  had 
gone,  until  we  came  to  the  gate  and  lane  leading  from  the  main  road  to  the  resi- 
dence of  Joseph  Franklin,  Esq.  We  had  engaged  to  lake  tea  with  Mr.  Frank- 
lin's family,  and  at  the  gate  my  brother  Thomas  (not  intending  to  be  one  of  the 
party  at  Mr.  Franklin's)  left  us  and  drove  onward  to  my  own  house,  my  wife 
coming  into  the  carriage  where  I  was,  in  order  to  ride  up  the  lane  to  Mr:  Frank- 
lin's house.  About  six  or  half-past  six  in  the  evening,  we  reached  Mr.  Franklin'a 
residence,  where  we  spent  the  evening  ;  and  about  nine  at  night,  we,  that  is,  the 
Bishop,  my  wife,  I,  and  my  Joung  nephew,  before.. mentioned,  started  in  my 
barouche-wagon  for  home.  The  Bishop  and  my  wife  occupied  the  back  seat,  I 


131 

•ad  nor  nephew  were  in  front :  I  drore ;  and,  op  to  a  short  period  after  ray  arrival 
at  home,  1  still  though*  that  my  wife  had  been  mistaken  as  to  the  Bishop's  conduct 
of  the  morning,  and  I  bad  not  the  least  suspicion  of  him.  Immediately  afler  we 
reached  home,  my  wife  again  spoke  to  me,  in  private,  and  told  me  that  the  Bishop 
bad  repeated  his  indecencies:  I  told  her  we  would  hare  family  prayers  im- 
mediately, when  we  could  retire,  and  she  could  then  inform  me  of  particulars. 
When  we  were  in  oar  chamber  alone,  my  wife  told  me  that  the  Bishop  had,  as  in 
the  morning,  pat  his  arm  around  her,  drawn  her  forcibly  to  him,  and  thrust  hi? 
hand  within  her  dress,  so  that  it  was  on  her  naked  bosom,  that  she  indignant]* 
threw  it  from  her,  that  he  repeated  it,  when  she  again  threw  it  off  angrily,  anc 
nothing  prevented  her  from  screaming  oat,  instantly,  bat  the  fact  that  my  little 
nephew  was  by  my  side, -and  that,  through  his  agency,  the  natter  would  then  be 
made  public,  and  she  dragged  into  a  notoriety  painfully  distressing  to  a  virtuous 
and  respectable  female ;  besides  this,  she  recollected  that  the  distance  from  her 
home  was  short,  and  that  she  would  therefore  soon  be  delivered  from  his  presence. 
After  she  had  thus  indignantly  thrown  his  hand  off  several  times,  in  die  manner 
above  stated,  the  Bishop,  she  informed  me,  in  a  most  indecent  manner  passed  his 
hand  down  her  bodv,  and  the  bone  of  her  corset  alone  protected  her  from  the  gross 
indignity  of  having  his  Band  pressed  upon  the  private  parts  of  her  body. 

She  spent  the  Bight  in  a  state  of  mind  bordering  on  madness*  and  my  agor.r 
was  but  link  short  of  hers.  The  next  day  (Monday)  the  Bishop  was  to  be  at  Di. 
Muhleaberg's  school,  at  College  Point,  seven  or  eight  miles  distant.  Immediately 
after  breakfast  he  was  to  take  his  departure,  and  approached  my  wife  to  take 
leave — seemingly  offering  to  kiss  her.  She.  drew  back.  As  the  wagon  left,  th* 
house  be  turned,  and  kissed  his  hand  to  fcer  once  or  twice.  I  had  no  servant- 
•san  to  send  with  him  to  Dr.  Kohlenberg's ;  I  did  not  like  to  trust  my  nephew 
a  distance  so  far,  and  besides,  I  wished  very  much  to  see  some  of  my'  brethren 
aa  soon  as  I  eouid,  for  consultation,  aad  I  knew  I  should  meet  them  at  Coflegr 
Point ;  I  therefore  resolved  to  take  him  there  myself.  On  our  ride  very  little 
tras  said  between  us,  and  my  manner  was  so  cold  and  reserved  that  I  suppose 
he  most  have  remarked  it.  When  we  arrived  at  the  Point,  I  sought  for  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Kerfoot,  (now  of  Maryland,)  and  told  him  my  story,  asking  his  advice.  He 
proposed  to  me  that  we 'should  ask  God's  direction,  and  we  knelt  down  together, 
he  making  a  short  prayer  asking  for  guidance.  He  then  said  he  would  confer 
with  Dr.  MuUenberg,  and  1  immediately  returned  home.  It  was  a  few  days  after 
this  that  I  received  a  note  from  Dr.  Muftlecberg,  desiring  to  see  me  at  College 
Point,  where  I  immediately  went ;  and  in  reply  to  Dr.  Muhknberjr's  inquiries.  1 
told  him  the  story  as  already  set  forth  in  this  paper ;  and  as  I  proceeded,  the  Doctor 
took  notes  of  it  in  writing,  so  framed  as  to  be  unintelligible  to  any  one,  should  they 
be  lost ;  and  the  Doctor  said  he  would  see  the  Bishop  on  the  subject. 

I  beard  no  more  from  Dr.  Muhlenberg  until  about  a  week's  time,  when  1  received 
«.  note  from  him  asking  me  to  meet  him,  at  Flashing,  that  I  might  accompany  him 
'.  York.  I  did  meet  him,  and  we  rode  down  together  in  his  wagon.  On  our 
tide  be  told  me  that  on  the  day  before,  he,  Dr.  Milnor,  and  Dr.  Waiawrigbt  ha*! 
gone  to  the  Bisbop^aod  that  Dr  Milnor  had  opened  the  subject  of  15s,  the  Bishop's, 
misconduct  towards  ra^g  wife ;  when  Dr.  Molileaberg  went  on  with  it,  he,  the  Sno- 
op, denied  fact  after  faR,  restated  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg.  Dr.  Muhleuberg  then  read 
to  him  from  the  no^sffiaffed  taken,  when  the  Bishop  said  that  he.  would  like  to  see 
Mr.  Beare.  and  expiahi  the  matter  to  him.  Dr.  Muhlenberg  then  said  to  him, 
"  Would  yoa  like  to  see  Mr.  Beare  V  The  Bishop  answered,  "  Yes."  "  Then," 
replied  Dr.  Muhlenberg, "  yon  shall  see  him  "  Dr.  Muhlenberg  went  on  to  inform 
me,  that  it  was  to  fulfil  that  promise  he  wished  me  to  go  to  New  York,  and  that  an 
appointment  bad  been  mide  for  me  lo  see  the  Bishop  that  afternoon  at  four  o'clock. 
Accordingly,  at  four  o'clock,  Dr.  Milnor,  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  the  Rev.  M.-.  Higher, 
aad  I,  roe:  at  the  Bishop's  bouse,  wJieb  the  Bishop  took  us  into  a  private  roca . 
and  his  manner  betrayed  great  agitation.  The  Bishop  began  by  addressing  him- 
self to  me,  and  said  it  v.  is  a  very  painful  subject,  and  that  my  wife  had  misunder- 
stood his  intentions.  I  ssid  :o  him,  **  Do  yot  deny  the  facts,  sir '"  He  answered 
with  embarrassment  and  a?.  '  '  would  not  deny  tbatwh:.. 

wrfe  says  is  true,  but  she  has  misconceived  iny  motives."     He  then  weal  on  with 


1 -}'J 

extravagant  professions  of  regard  for  me.,  said  he  would  not  think  of  insulting  me 
or  my  wife,  and  much  to  the  same  purpose.  There  was  other  conversation  between 
him  and  me  on  the  subject,  the  exact  particulars  of  which  I  cannot  undertake  to 
give,  as  to  me  it  was  Very  painful :  suffice  it  to  sayx  that -his  agitation  and  embar- 
rassment were  very  grea.t,  that  he  finally  burst  into  tears,  said  he  would  not  contra^ 
diet  the  statement. of  facts  my  wife  had  made  to  me,  thai  he  begged  my  forgive- 
ness, and  would  beg  that  of  my  wife  also,  and  was  ready  to  make  any  reparation  I 
would  demand.  Up  to  this  t\m&  the  other  gentlemen,  I  think,  had  said  nothing- 
After  this,  Dr.  Milnor,  in  a  very  dignified  manner,  spoke  to  the  Bishop  of  rumors 
affecting  his  character,  and  entreated  Tiirn  to,  be  circumspect.  We  then  left  the 
Bishop's  house;  and  on  parting  with  the  gentlemen,  they  said  they  thought  my 
wife  and  I  had  shown  great  Christian  forbearance. 

(Signed,). 
..-.-.  .     HENRY  M.  BEARE, 

.   .  Minister  of  Xion  Church,  Little  Neck,  L.  1. 
Sworn  and  subscribed,  on  this  21st  day  ) 
of  October,  A.  D.  1844,  before  me.    $ 

(Signed,)        Gfio.  GRISCOM,  Alderman.     •' 

I  certify  the  above  to  be  a  faithful  and  correct  copy  of  the  original,  duly  . 
collated  with  the  same,  this  30th  of  Dec.,  1844. 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

The  Counsel  for.  the  Presentment  read  in  Court  .a  certificate  of  John 
Rudderow,  showing  that  the  attendance  of  Miss  Rebecca  P.  Riker,  a  wit- 
ness-desired by  the  Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  could  not  be  procured  ;' 
and  asked  the  interposition  of  the.  Court,  by  a-  citation  to  said  witness  to 
attend  forthwith.  - 

Ordered,  That  the  Clerk  issue  a  citation  to  Miss  Rebecca  P.  Riker,  to 
attend  the  Court  forthwith.. 

Miss  Michal  Roberts  Rutter  was  called  as  a  witness  by  the  Counsel  for 
the' Respondent,  and  having  been  sworn  on  the  37th  instant,  was  examined. 

'  '.  --.  '  • 

1..  What  is  your  name!     .        ;          *. 

Michal  Roberts  Tlutter. 
'        2.  Where  do  you  reside  1 
....  At  Yorkville. 

3.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church T. 

I  attend  it,  but  I  am  not  a  communicant.    , 
-  4.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Benevolent  Spqiety  of  St.  James's  Church* 

I  was.  .      .        .  ••..-.-.  .         ' 

5.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Miss  Jane  O.  Rudderow? 

Slightly.   '*.:,...      .   .  '  '''••',         .    .' 

.6.  Was  she  a  member -of  that  .Society  with  you'  in  the  month  of  December, 
18421  . 

She  was.  *? '  ^  *  >' 

7k  Have  you  any  recollection  of  a  conversation  upon  the  subject  of  calling  ot( 
the  Bishop,  to  see  whether  he  would  not  give  his  consent  to  your  society  meeting  in 
the  church  i 

Yes.    -  '    /:.  •'/:.' 

8.  Was  Jane  O.  Rudderow  present  at  that  conversation  ? 
She  was.  .         .  .     ' 

9.  Will  you  be  kind  enough,  to. statd  what  passed  in  that  conversation,  and  par-> 
ticularly  what  was  said  by  Jane  O.  Rudderow  1 

•On  Mr.  Dowdney's  objeeting  to  enf  sewing  in  the  cfiiirch,  I  said,  "Never  minS 
Mr.  Dawdney's  consent.  We  will  obtain  the  Bishop's  leave."  Miss  Jane  O. 
Rudderow  said,  "  I  will  call  on  the  Bishop."  I  said,  •"  Do  you  know  Kim  3"  She 
said,  "  Yes,  intimately."  That  is  alj  I  recoliect  that. passed. 


133 


10.  Did  you  ever-hear  her  say  any  thing  after  this  of  her.  having  called  ..upon 
the  Bishop  ]  .  •  .  .  .  •  : '.  .  '  r  . 

I  did  not:    •  •  ..   ••      •        ' 

The  Counsel  .for  the  Respondent  moved  the  Gontf,  that  the  'summing  up 
by  Counsel  might  be  so  arranged,  as  that  Cojunsej  flight  alternate,"  the  last 
turn  being  given  to  one  of -the  Counsel  for  {he  Respondent;  Pending  the 
discussion  on  the  motion,  addresses  were  .made  tp- the  ;Cburl.  by  the '.Bishops 
of  Virginia  and  Tennessee,  objecting  to  it  as  Presenting  Bishops, 'in  their 
own  names.  .  .» -,  .  '•'..'  •  \  '< " 

The  motion  was  refused.          .        .       '  .    .   v         :  .         ; ."• 

The  Bishops  of  IHinois, .Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio>  Louisiana,  and  f)ela-. 
ware;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of.Massachu* 
setts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  -Missionary  Diocese,  refusing  ; 
and  the  Bishops  .of  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the"  North  Western  'Mrs; 
sionary  Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  Dis- 
senting. 

Aaron  L.  Poyer,  a  witness  called  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent, 
and  the  Rev.  Jonathan  M.  Wainwright,  D.  D.,:  a  witness,  caljed^by  the 
Counsel  for  the  Presentment,  were 'severally  sworn  by  Day  tori.  Hobart,  Esq., 
the  commissioner  fbr.that  purpose. 

The  REV.  JONATHAN  M.  WAINWRIGHT,  D.  D.,  was  thep  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

1.  W)?at  is  your  profession,  and  where  do  you  reside  1 

I  am  a  clergyman,  and  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York,  No.  10  Hubert-street. 

2.  In  or  about  the  month  of  July,  1842,  did  you,  in.  -company  with  Dr.  Milnor, 
'Dr.  Muhlenberg,  and  Dr.  Higbee,  visit  Bishop  Onderdonk'of  this  cityj  at  his  own 

house  ;  and  if  so,  did  you  see  him  1 
I  did.  .        .    •  Y    •'      • 

3.  Was  the  object  of  your  visit  communicated  to  him';  and-. if  so,  by  whom  ? 
Before  going  further  in  answering  the  questions  that  may  be  put  to  me,  I  wish 

to  explain  the  circumstances  under  which  I  made  that  visit";  as  it  wjjl  exhibit  .to  the 
Court  the  reason  why  I  am  not  enabled  now  to  give  more  definite  'answers  to  such 
questions  as  may  be  put  to  me.  A  very  dear  child  of  my  own  had  died  suddenly 
the  night  before.  Being  in  great  affliction,  I  went,  not  intending  to  take  any  active  . 
part  in  the  interview,  but  merely  because  I  would  not  permit  my  brethren  to  go  on  • 
a  painful  errand,  in  reference  to  which  I  had  been  the  means  of  inviting  them,  with- 
out accompanying  them.  In  other  words,  I  did  not  think  it  right  to  allow  my  pri- 
vate griefs  to. prevent  my  sustaining  th?m,asfar  as  need  be,  by  my  presence.  I  now 
answer  :  my  impression  is  that  Dr.  Mil  nor  first  stated  that  we  had  come  upon  an 
unpleasant  errand,  or  words  to  that  effect.  After  further  introductory  observations, 
the  purport  of  which  I  do  not  remember,  he  referred  to  Dr.  Muhlenberg  for  a  fuHer 
statement  of  the  object  of  the  visit. 

4.  Did  Dr.  Muhlenberg  proceed  to  give  such    statement ;  and  if  so,  wa's  -it  a1 
statement  in  detail  or  not  1 

My  recollection  is  too  indistinct  to  say  to  what  extent  it  was  in  detail. 

5.  Do  you  remember  any  facts  which  he  communicated  on  that  occasion  1 

I  cannot  at  this  time  discriminate  between  what  was  mentioned  then,  and. what 
he  had  told  me  previously.  What  I  mean  to  say  is  this,  that'  within  two,,  or  three" 
days  certain  facts  were  commnnicated  to  me  by  Dr.  Mublenberg ;  and  I  cannot  at 
this  period  of  time  assign  this  statement  of  facts  to  one  day  or  the  other..  • 

6.  Can  you  remember  whether  the  statement  of  facts,  made  before  you  saw  the 
Bishop,  and  in  the  interview  with  the  Bishop,  corresponded  ? 

[Objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent/  and  the  objection  sus- 
tained by  the  Court.  The  Bishops  of  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Ohio. 
New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New 


134 

*  • 

York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia ; 

and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  Southwestern  Mission- 
ary Diocese,  sustaining  it ;  and  the  Bishop  of  Illinois  dissenting.] 

7.  Can  you  remember  whether  the  statement  made  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg  to  the 
Bishop  \vas  from  written  notes  or  not ! 

I  cannot  remember. 

8.  Was  it  a  long  or  a  short  statement  1 

I  wish  here  to  refer  to  my  preliminary  observations.  My  child  was  dead  in  my 
house,  and  I  was  there  simply  because  I  would  not  withhold  my  personal  presence 
from  my  brethren  yi  their  discharge  of  a  painful  duty.  The  whole  matter  is  ex- 
ceedingly indistinct  in  my  recollection,  I  must  confess,  and  I  cannot  separate  in 
my  own  mind,  at. this  distance  of  time,  what  Dr.  Muhlenberg  said  at  the  Bishop's, 
in  connection  with  this  subject,  and  what  he  had  previously  communicated  to  me. 

9.  Did  the  statement  of  Dr.  Muhlenberg  occupy  five  minutes,  ten  minutes,  or 
fifteen  minutes  ?     State  as  nearly  as  you  can  recollect. 

My  impression  is  that  it  must  have  been  from  fiv<>  to  ten  minntes,  but  I  have  not 
a  distinct  recollection  enough  to  be  more  explicit. 

10.  Was  the  statement  of  Dr.  Muhlenberg  clear  or  indistinct? 

It  was  clear  enough  to  me  from  knowing  the  previous  circumstances,  but  wheth- 
er it  would  have  been  clear  to  any  one  else  I  am  sure  I  cannot  recollect. 
.11:  With  what  was  the.  Bishop  charged  on  that  occasion  1 

I  did  not  .understand  him  to  be  charged  with  any  tiling — by  us,  I  mean.  The 
object  of  our  visit  was  to  state  that  he  had  been  charged  by  Mr.  Beare  with  using 
indecent  familiarity"''  with  his  wife,  and  our  object  was  to  let  him  know  that  this 
charge  had  been  made.  We  did  not  charge  it  ourselves. 

12.  What  allegations  of  impropriety  of  conduct  were  stated  to  th*  Bishop  on 
;  that  occasion  ? 

I  before  answered  that  my  memory  did  not  serve  me  for  details  in  that  iMerview 
at  this  distance  of  time. 

Cross-Examinaticm. 
. 

1.  Have  yqu  any  recollection  of  any  thing  being  said  at  that  time  of  the  propri- 
ety of  an  interview  between  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Beare  upon  this  subject ;  if  any 
thing  was  said  on  that  subject,  have  you  any  recollection  by  whom  it  was  first  sug- 
gested 1    ' 

I  recollect  that  there  was  something  said  on  the  subject  of  the  propriety  of  such 
on  interview,  but  from  whom  the  suggestion  first  came  I  cannot  recollect. 

2.  Have  yo'u  any  recollection  whether  the  Bishop  did  or  did  not,  if  the  original 
suggestion  did  not  come  from  him,  readily  assent  to  kt 

My  strong  impression  is  that  he  readily  assented  to  it. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Johns. 

1:  Did  the  statement  made  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  at  the  Bishop's,  meet  your  ex- 
pectation of  what  it  would  be  ? 

I  had  formed  no  expectation  about  it ;  because  there  was  no  previous  arrange- 
ment, to  my  knowledge,  as  to  who  should  or  who  should  not  make  statements  of  the 
matter.  The  gentlemen  went  to  the  Bishop's  without  me.  They  left  me  at  my 
house,  finding  my  child  was  dead,  after  a  brief  interview  with  me;  I  not  in- 
tending to  go  with  them,  and  they  not  desiring  me  to  go  ;  but  after  they  had  left  my 
house  a  few  minutes-  together,  I  was  so  strongly  impressed  that  I  ought  not  to  let 
my  private  griefs  interfere  with  what  1  esteemed  a  public  duty,  that  I  followed 
them,  and  overtook  them  just  as  they  were  entering  the  Bishop's  study  ;  therefore 
I  knew  of  no  arrangeriient  as  to  who  was  to  speak  in  the  matter. 

2.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  were  at  the  time  struck  with  any  want  of 
clearness  in  Dr:  Muhlenberg's  statement  ? 

I  do  not  recollect  to  have  been  struck  with  any  want  of  clearness  I  do  not 
remember  to  have  been,  impressed,  one  way  or  the  other,  in  reference  to  this  point  of 
;!earness  of  statement. 


. 

•      •  :       •  '  • 

•••      •'••'     •'•  .•.."•  '       f  '• 

•  135 

By  Bishop  Ives. 

3.  Do  yon  recollect  any  thing  about  it  ? 

No.  As  to  the  details  of  the  whole  matter,  my  impression  is  too  indistinct  tc 
give  any  testimony. 

By  Bishop  Johns. 

1.  Was  tiiere,  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop,  any  denial  of  the  troth  of  the  statement 
made  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg  1 

I  understood  the  Bishop  to  deny  it. 

By  Bishop  Whiltingham.    . 

5.  Did  you  so  understand  hjrn  with  reference  to  the  details,  or  to  the  genera! 
purport  of  the  statement?     '.  • 

I  must  answer,  to  the  general  purport  of  the  statement;  because  it  is  .not  dis- 
tinct in -ray  own  mind  how  far  details  were  charged  at  that  lime. 
By  Bishop  Polk. 

6.  When  you  left  the  house  of  the  Bishop,  did  yon  feel  that  you  had  performed 
the  duty  yon  went  to  discharge,  as  you  have  stated   in*  your  answer  to  question  11 
in  your  direct  examination  ? 

I  did  feel  that  I  had  performed  my  duty,  in  being  instrumental  in  bringing  to  the 
JTishnp's  knowledge  the  charge  made  against  him  by  Mr.  Beare. 

AARON  L.  POYKR  was  then 'examined. 

Direct  Examination. 

I.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  business  ? 
No.  37  West  Broadway.     My  occupation  is  that  of  a  hair-dresser  ? 
*J.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church  ? 
I  am.  ; 

3.  Are  you  a  communicant,  and  how  long  have  you  been  so  ? 
1  am,  and  have  been  for  about  13  years. 

4.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Re\\  Henry  M.  Beare,  of  Long  Island ! 
Perfectly  so. 

5.  Does  he  often  come  to  your  shop  * 
He  does  every  6  or  7  weeks. 

6.  Have  yoa  any  recollection  of  a  conversation  with  him  in  your  shop-during 
Xhe  last  summer,  in  relation  to  Bishop  Onderaonk  1 

Mi.  Beare  declared  the  Bishop  to  be  a  great  favorite  of  his  ;  and  whenever  he 
came  to  the  shop  I  asked  him  about  his  friend,  the  Bishop. 

7.  The  question  is  repeated  1      .  » 

Nothing  more  than  my  inquiring  bosv  the  Bishop  was,  and  when  he  had  seen 
btm. 

8.  What  answer  did  he  make  when  you  asked  him- that  question? 
If  lie  had  seen  the  Bishop  he  would  tell  uie  he  was  very  well. 

9.  Is  that  all  tl)e  conversation  you  remember  to  frave  had 'last  summer  T 

Yes,  sir;  that  I  remember.  Bishop  OuderdoHk  and  Mr.  Beare  met  in  my  shop 
ihe  last  summer,  and  they  appeared  to  be  very  sociable  and  friendly  together. 

Cross-Examined. 

I.*  What  did  they  aay  to  each  other* 

I  cannot  say  ;  they  shook  hands,  and  appeared  to  be  Tory  friendly. 

The  Rev.  James  Milnor,  D.  !>.,  was  then  again  called  as  a  witness  by 
the  Counsel  for  the  Presentment,,  and  examined  by  them. 

Direct  Examination  resumed,* 
Rev.  JAMES  MILNOR,  T).  D.,  recalled. 

10.  When  you  was  before  the  Ourt  on  a  former  occasion*  yon  spoke  of  a  stata* 
ment  made  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg  to  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in  your  presence,  and  that  of 


.  . 

,36 


•      .  -    .     .'  .f       •'•  A.     '•       IL.      '    •   •  •  .  - 

J     '  •      ^  !  .••**•• 

pr'..Wainwright,  and  Dr.  Higbee  ;  will  you  now  state  -whether  that  statement  was 
a1  clear  and  distinct  one,  .er  confused  and  indistinct  * 

.    '      .{This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsellor  the  Respondent  ;  wlu-n  the 
objection  was  unanimously  overruled  by  the  Gourt.J 

I  have  a  not  very  exact  recollection:  of  the  character  of  that  statement;  but  so 
far  as  I  rernember,  it  wag.  sufficiently  clear  and  distinct.     I  recollect  no  remark  at 
that  -interview,  on'the'paft  of  any  dne,  to  the  contrary. 
.11.  Was  'Bishop  Onderdonk.  informed  -at  that  time'  of  .the  specific  allegations'  of 

•  acts  of  impfppriety,  alleged  -to.  have,  been  committed   by  him  towards  Mrs.'Beare  1 

[Objected  to  and  withdrawn.] 

•  18.  '.After  you  left  the  house  of  the.Bishop,  at  the  second  interview,  and  before  you 
separated  from  Dr.  Higbee,  do  you  .remember  what  was  said  by  him.  as  to.the  guilt 
or  innodenoe  of  the  Bishop  1  . 

!    V."   Yes,  sir.  '•  .   v 

19.   Please  state.it.'      .'  >  .•    : 

*  :£>r.  Higbee  said  to  me,  with  some  emotion  in  his  manner,  "  What  a  lie  he  told  !" 
That  remark  was.  made  to-  me  ;  whether  &  was   made  so  that  Jhe  rest  could  hear, 
I  cannot  say..  .      i         .      '         , 

•  ;      In  justice  to  DP.  Htgbeet  I  ought  to.  state,  that  since  the  pendency  of  this  trial  he 
;•    has  mentioned  to  me  that  he  rfid  irot  jnecollect  having  used  that  expression  ;  but 

'.  •  added,  I  felt  very  indignant,  and'  I  might  have  said  so.    Before  we  separated,.!  think 

:  at  the  corner  »f  •  Broadway  and  either  Franklin  or  Walker  street,  DC-  Higbee  made 

..."        a  remark  of  this.  kind  to'Mr'v  Be'are.:.  ":You  were  vorv  forbearing  with  the  Bishop  ; 

but'if  he  had  trealed'  my  wife  so,  I  would  have  'kicked  him  out  of  the  house."    That 

:.•  ••  remark  I  distinctly  recollect. 

••  >20.  ;  DM  you,  and  thfe  Reverend  gentlemen  who  accompanied  you  from  the  house 

•  of  the  Bishop,  after  the  sdcopd  interview,  come  to  any  agreement  before  you  sepa- 
'•    /rated,  -that  tbe  Bishop  wa^  innocent?  .  '. 

[This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent  ;  when  the 
objection  was.  overruled'by  the  Codrt. 

.     ...        The   Bisliops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,-  Vermont,   Kentucky,  Ohio,  the    North 
''  ..•'•   '".   Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  and  Delaware  ;  the 

•  -.Assistant  Bishep  of  Vi^iniav  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,'  Rhode  Island, 
.     and  the.'South.Western  Afissionarj-  Diocese,  overruling  it.     The  Bishops  of  North 

Carolina^  Nfcw  Jersjejr,  South  Carolina,  and.  Maryland,  dissenting.] 
'    ••;.    WedidnoU  "   .  .    •'  •       .     ...:,'.     ,  '':'' 

•  '•     .    •    21;  Did  •  'you1  agrree  that  you  would  say  nothing  about  it,  and  did  you  state  your 
'..'..     Teasdris.  for"  that  agjeement  af  the  .time  ;  and  if  so,  what  were  they  ! 

We  did  agree  that,  —  -at  least.it  was  a  sort  of  understanding,  I  do  not  remember  the 
exact  terms'  in  which  it  was  said,-1  —  that  we  would  not  speak  of  the  transaction.  •  I  do 
not  .remember  tbat  any  reasohs  were  given  at  the  time. 


;      .    .    .  .       :  .    .  ,    uross-axammation. 

19.  ,Whe"n.^i$  you  first  mention  these  matters  after  their  occurrence  1 
,1  may,  in  a  single, instance,  have  confidentially  Spoken  of  the  .matter  I 


gyman  ;  at  what  time-since  the  occurrence,  I  cannot  remember. 
•        .  26:  Who  was  that  clergyman  ? 

vlt.wa*  Rev.  Dr.  Turner.  '  .1  ihink  it  proper  }  should  add,  that  I  should  not  have 
remembered  U  had  it.not  since  been  mentioned  to  me  by  Dr.  Turner^  Neither  to 
my  wife,  noi>  any  member  of  my  family,  nor  any  other  person,  so  far  as  I  believe 

•  or  recollect,  have  I-ever  mentioned  the  circumstance  until  durihgthle  late  General 
Conventi&n.  ....  . 

xM  .   Did  you.  mention  it  m Philadelphia  daring  the  session  of  the  GeneraKCon* 

*  Mention-';  and  if  so,  to  whom  ? 

•    To  the  Presenting  Bishops.    Th6  difficultiee  of  the  Bishop  became'a  subject  of  i 
conversation.     Many  persons  spoke  to.  me  on  the  subject ;  some  appearing  U>  have 
no  knowledge' of  my  acquaintance  with,  the  -affair,  but  communicating  it  to  me  a» 
new  information,  '  To  such  I  did  not  ciommuaicate  the  fact ;  I  'received  the  infoi- 

••       »     ^  **•••!*>'•*..••      -;  .'.  '  *     &'-      .'"•*.'         '"         '         - 


• 


'...•.•.••      •  •:.'•-!•.•.'  .  Y.      -•••  *•>••••         •  J»  •" 
i';'  l;l*fV;; 

mation,  but  said  nothing  myself.  In -other  instances,  persons  spoke  to  me, who  had 
heard  of  our  interviews  with  the_  Bishop;  and  in  those  cases  I  either  confirmed  or' 
corrected  the  statements  they  made,. according  as.  the  facts  required. 

22.  Was  Dr.  Hawks  .one  of  the  persons  with  whom  you  conversed  on  the  sub- 
ject in  Philadelphia  ?  ;: •;.;  ...   '.        :.:;.      '... 

'  He  was  hot,  to  my  .recollection. 

23,  Were  you  called  upon  by  any  person-,-  and  if  -so,  by  whom,  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  from  you  a  statement  of  the  facts,  with  a  vifew  to  the  presentment  of     '. 
the  Bishop  1  >  .-.•.;. 

I  received  a  written  communication,  signed  by  five  membep-s  of  the  House  'of! 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies',  to  the  purport  that  they  understood  I  was  acquainted 
with  the  fact  of  ••  indecencies  offered  to  th«  person  of  the  wife  of  the  R!ev,'M,r.. 
'Beare,  and  also  with  instances  of  intemperance -on  the  part  oft  the  Bishop,  and-re- 
questing  me  to  make,  an  affidavit  of  the  facts,. to  be  laid  before  the  Presenting1  . 
Bishops,  I  think.    I  sent  them  a  written  answer,  declining  io  tnake  a  voluntary  af- 
fidavit, in  that  extra-judicial  way  ;  but  when  legally  of  cano4jcally  called  upon,  ?F    . 
should  be.  ready  to  "testify  to  what.  I  knew.     I  communicated  to  Dr,  Wainwright 
and  Dr.  Higbee  the  letter  and  my:  answer;  of  which  answer  |  they  'expressed  their 
approbation. 

By  the  Court.' .  '  .; 

.'•.'.  -  i  -  .  '  •   •"!•'.  :         ' 

•  -     •  .  •  i      •'••    .      .        •  •    ••'«.    :    -. 

By  Bishop  Ivesv  .  •  ;,     '    ••-._  -. '  .. 

1.  'Had  you,  before  the  first  interview  with  the  Bishop^  a  full  ajid  •  distinct 
knowledge <»f  the  facts  alleged. by  Mr.  Beare.  •    - 

They  were  communicated  to  me  by  Dr.  Wainwright  and  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  when 
they  .called  Hpon  me  to  accompany  them  to  the  Bishop's.  i 

2.  Can  you  be  certain  that-you  WjCre  not  aided  in  your  understanding  of  wfijat 
Dr>  Muhlenberg  stated  to  the  Bishop,  by  y'our  .previous  and  particular  knowledge  . 
of  the  facts  1  .  . 

I  think  I  made  the  first  communication,  and.  not  Dr.  Muhlenberg.  The  facto 
were  stated  tome  in  my  study.  They  might  hav.e  aided  my-  understanding 'of 
what  Dr.-  Muhlenberg  stated  in  the  presence  of  the  Bishop;  but  I  remember.no 
confusion  in  that  statement.  . 

-5.  Was  -Dr.  Higbee,  in  making  the  remark  as  you  have  stated,  after  the  second 
interview,  apparently  under  strong  excitement  ? 

'Dr.  Higbee's  statement  to  me,  as'.  I;  have  already 'given  it,  sufficiently  indicates' 
the  state  of  his  mind.     He  said  he  was  indignant;     To  any  state  of  feeling  thai 
was  indicated  by  Dr.  Higbee,  1  would  by  no  m,eans  apply  ^he.terrja-f  strong  excit^-  . '. 
ment."  •       '  .  ;     '  '    •  ; '.'  '.'-'•;' 

By  Brshop  De.  Lancey.  ..,'.' 

4.  Was  Dr.  Muhlenberg  at  all  agitated  in  making,  his  .statement  to  Bishop  On- 
derdouk,  in  the  interview. with  him  T    .. 

•     I  do  not' remember  that  he  Was.  •' .    ' ..  '. 

5.  Was  Mr.  Beare  a  party  to  the  understanding  had  after  you  left  the  Bishop, 
not  to  speak  of  the  transaction  t  : 

i  do  not  recollect  that  he  said  any  thing  on  the  subject^  but!  considered  him  in- 
cluded in  that  understanding,  and  hd  so  considered  himself.  •'  •' 

6.  Was  the  Rev,  James  C.  Richmond  one  of  the  persons  with  whom  ypu  cqa-  . 
versed  oft  this  subject  in  Philadelphia,  or  elsewhere  ? 

Mr.  Richmond  several  times -attempted  to  speak  with  me -upon,  the  subject,  and 
I  as  often  declined  conference  with  him"  with  regard  to  it.  '  .'  .  ' '. "_>. . 

•  .7.   You  said  .that  you  received  a  letter  in  Philadelphia  from  five  members  of  th« 
Hbuse  of  .Clerical  and  Lay'Deputicis  ;  what  was  the  date  of  that  letter  t 

1  do  not  recollect,  but,  will,  furnish  .the  date;  it  ^as  during  the  sitting  of  th« 
General  Convention. 

Q.  What  are  the  names  of  the  persons  by  whom 'that  letter  was  signed  ?     •'..'• 

Rev.- Paul  Tcapi^r,  Hon:  Mr.  Memminger,  Col. -Morris,  these  three  of  South 
Carolina;  Revv  Mr.  Gallagher,  of  Georgia,  and  Dr.  Dubois;  of  Ohio.  . 

•     1     18  •    •'  '    ;  .•••'• 


I 


*•  •         ••»  *,..  •  • 

••*  *>  .     'll  .  .  " 

139 

.  s  • 

By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

9.  You  said  there  was  a  mutual  understanding  that  you  and  the  gentlemen  would 
aay  no  more  about  it ;  were  any  reasons,"  and  what,  given  for  coming  to  such  an 
understanding  ? 

I  do  not  remember  that  any  statement  of  reasons  was  made  at  that  time. 

10.  What  were  the  reasons  in  your  own  mind  for  coming  to  that  understanding1 
[Objected  to  and  withdrawn  ] 

You  have  said  Col.  Morris  was  of  South  Carolina ;  do  you  kmnr  whether  or 
not  he  was  a  member  of  the  late  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  ? 

I  saw  him  there,  and  presume  he.  was ;'  but  I  understood  he  was  a  delegate  from 
the  Diocese  of  South  Carolina  to  the  last  General  Convention. 

By  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

11.  In  the  understanding  spoken  of  after  you  left  the  Bishop's,  was  it  understood 
by  you  and  the  other  gentlemen  present,  that,  the  matter  of.  which  you  had  then 
spoken  to  the  Bishop  was  to  be  considered  as  finally  settled  and  disposed  of? 

I  do  not  remember  any  such  terms  being  used  in  the  course  of  our  conversation 
It  may  be  proper  for  me  to  add,  that  we  endeavored,  all  of  us,  to  soothe  the  feei- 
iriga  of  Mr.  Beare  as  much  as  possible. 

12.  Were  there  any  facts  or  remarks  which  served  to  explain  .Dr.  Higbee'a 
words,  "  what  a  lie  he  told,"  and- if  so,  state  what  these  farls  or  remarks  were  ?. 

I  cannot  state  the  precise  words  which  may  have  passed,  but  I  well  remember 
our  speaking  to  each  other  of  the  difference  in  the  Bishop's  treatment  of  the  mat- 
ter on  the  first  and  second  interview  ;  that  is,  his  positive  denial  on  the  first  day, 
and.  his  appeals  to  Mr.  Beare  on  the  second.  From  all  that  passed,  he  undoubtedly 
referred  to  the  denial  of  the  'Bishop  on  the  first  day. 

By  Bishop  Whittingham. 

13.  Are  you  quite  sure  that  ydu  could  not- have  misunderstood  Mr.  Higbee,  and 
that  he  had  reference  to  no  other  person  bat  the  Bishop,  when  he  spoke  of  a  lie 
having  been  told? 

From,  all  that  passed,  I  feel  certain  that  he  could  have  referred  to  nothing  else. 

14.  What  did  pass,  to  make  you  feel  so  certain? 

I  think  I  have  already  stated-that  the  difference  in  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  on 
the  first  and  second  occasion,  was  the  subject  of  conversation  among  us  all,  in- 
cluding Dr.  Higbee. 

15.  But  does  that  make  you  certain  that  Mr  Higbee  referred  to  the  denial  of 
she  Bishop  of  the  first  day  ? 

From  all  that  passed  I  could  infer  nothing  else. 

16.  Do  you  now  recollect  any. thing  to  authorize  your  inference  that  the  Bishop's 
statement  or  conduct  on  ihe  first  day,  and  not  on  the  second,  were  in  Dr.  Higbee's 
mind  when  he  used  the  words  spoken  of? 

I  infer  it  from  4he  whole  conversation. 

17.  May  I  conclude,  then,  that  you  recollect  nothing  more  on  the  subject  than 
you  have  stated  T 

I  do  not  at  this  time. 

18.  Did  Mr.  Higbee,  in  ihe  remark  which  you  stated  that  he  addressed  to  Mr. 
Beare  before  you  separated,  say  or  do  any  thing  which  indicated  that  he  meant  to 
affirm  that  the  Bishop  had  treated  Mr.  Beare's  wife  in  the   way  alleged,  or  to 
make  you  quite  sure  that  he  did  not  intend  ironically  to  reproach  Mr.  Beare  with 
what  he  considered  inconsistent  tergiversation  ? 

In  answer  to  the  first  part  of  this  question,  I  say  that  every  thing  in  the  con- 
versation held  after  leaving  the  Bishop's,  led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was 
no  difference  between  us  as  to  the  truth  of  Mrs.  Beare's  statement.  As  to  his 
ipeaking  ironically,  I  have  never  had  any  such  conception. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


. 

139 

Monday,  December  3CM,  1844, 
half-past  9  o'clock,  A.M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to 'adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Western  New  York.  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ; 
the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode- 
Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  President  laid  before  the  Court  a  letter-  from  the  Rev.  James  Mil- 
nor,  D.  D.,: inclosing  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Paul  Trapicr  and  others,  to 
him,  Dr.  Mihior  ;  and  his,  Dr.  Milnor's  reply  :  said  letters  having  been  re- 
ferred to  in  the  evidence  on  Saturday,,  the  28th,  and  then  promised  by.  Dr. 
Mil  nor  in  his  testimony. 

The  Bishop  of  North  Carolina  made  to  the  Court  a  return  of  the  com- 
mission for  the  examination  of  Miss  Ann  WTilson,  on  whidi  he  had  been 
appointed  on  Monday,  the  23d  inst.  ;  which  return  was  read  and  ordered 
to  be  entered  on  the  record,  as  follows,  viz; 

The  undersigned,  the  Commissioners  with  D.  Hobart,  Esq.,  appointed  -by  the 
Court  of  Bishops  in  the  matter  of  the  Presentment  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T. 
Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  New  York,  beg  leave  respeotfidjy  to  make  the  following 
report : 

On  Thursday,  the  26th  of  December,  in  pursuance  of  our  duty,  we  called  at  the 
house  of  Miss  Ann  Wilson,  No.  16  Varick  Place,  and  were  received  by  a.servant, 
who  immediately  informed  Miss  Wilson  of  our  presence.  She  returned  for  an- 
swer, that  she  was  too  much  indisposed  to  see  company.  Whereupon  xve  request- 
ed the  servant  to  inform  Miss  Wilson  that  we  had  called  to  inquire  whether  she 
would  consent  to  give  her  testimony  as  required.  The  servant  replied,  that  tbc 
message  would  be  useless,  as  her  mistress  had  resolved  not  to  see  any  one  on  tht- 
subject  of  her  testimony.  Upon  our  insisting  upon  the  message  being  taken  t(> 
her,  the  servant  left  us,  and  returned  for  answer,  that  Miss  Wilson  positively  Ire- 
fused  to  speak  with  any  one  on  the  subject. 

Whereupon,  upon  the  suggestion  of  the  Bishop  of  Ohio,  the  Bishop  of  NortL 
Carolma,  on  the  same  day,  addressed  to  Miss  Wilson  the  following  note ;  and  the 
subjoined  answer  was  returned. 

L.  S.  IVES, 
Bishop  of  North  Carolina.    • 

CHAS.  P.  McILVAINE, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Ohio. 

[Copy.] 

Bishop  Ives  respectfully  informs  Miss  Ann  Wilson,  that  with  Rt.  Rev.  Dr. 
Melhainc,  and  D.  Hobart,  Esq.,  he  has  been  appointed  by  the  Court  of  Bishops 
to  take  her  testimony,  and  requests  that  she  will  reply  in  writing  whether  she 
will  consent  to  give  the  same  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Onderdonk  ;  and  if  so,  at  what 
time  and  place. 

New  York,  Dec,  2G,  1844. 

[Copy.] 

A  communication  under  date  of  26th  inst.,  addressed  by  Bishop  Ives  to  Miss  Wil- 
son, has  this  day  been  received  ;  antf  in  reply  to  the  inquiry  whether  Miss  W.  will 
consent  to  give  bet  testimony  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  Bishop  Ives  is  re- 


140 

j        *  -.  "•  i  '''•-. 

spectfully  informed,  under  Miss  W.'»  authority,  'that  no  testimony  can  be  given  by 
her  in  the  ease  in  question.    And  the  use  6f  her  nanie  being  Altogether  unauthorized, 
thi*  opportunity  is  taken  to  request  that  Bishop  Tves  will  adopt  such  measures  as 
may  seem  proper  to  hare  i,t  withdrawal  from  the!  proceedings.. 
(  :?fM  York,  Dec.  28,  1844.  •  ...    • 

i       •  ••     '   I  • 

The  BjshGp  of-  Virginia,  in  behalf  of  (he  Presenting  Bishops,  addressed 
the  Court,  making  a  statenient  •  concerning  the  fourth  article  of  the  Pre- 


.'.'•*  The  REV.  ^ED'WARD  Y.>HIGBEE,  D.  D.,  wds  again  called  up  as^a  witness 

hy'  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent. 

*  •  .'••*• 

Direct  Examination  resumed. 
'.•.•*•.-•, 

,..'  17.  It  has.  been  stated  in  testimony,,  "by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Milnor,  that  npon  leaving 
the  house  .of  the  Bishop,  after  the  second  interview  to  which  you  have  testified, 
you  said  to  Dr.  Milnor  with  some  emotion  in  your  manner,  "  What  a  lie  he  told  •" 
Will  you  pjease  to  'state'  to  the  Court  whether  you  used  such  an  expression,  or  if 
not,  what  opinion  you  expressed  or  intended  to  convey  to  Dr.  Milnor  and  to  the  other 
gentlemen,  respecting  either,  or  both  of  your  Visits  to  the  Bishop  1  State  fully 
ypuf  language-and  opinions  on,  the  subject  at  that  time,  with  all  the-  attendant  eir- 
eurnst.anceB. 

,1  de  not'recollect  using  sueban  expression,  neither  is  it  quite  in  my  usual  style 

•f1  speaking  ;  yet  from  the  state  of  my  mind  at  'the  time,  as  nearly  as  I  can  recol- 

lect itn,  I  rtipy  have  used  such  an  expression.     I  believe  I  have  already  stated  to. 

..     .the  Court  that'  I  wetrt   away  from   the  Bishop's  displeased  with  the  interview. 

•'•    'f  Ia'id(greal  stress  upon  what  seemed  to  mq  not  entirely  consistent  between  the 

conversation  of  the  'Bishpp  at  -the  first  and  second  interviews.    ,At  the  first  in- 

'  :     tebriew  the  Bishop  spoke  witft  apparent  indignation  of  such  a  story  being  told  by 

'Mr.  'and  Mrs.  Beare,  and  I  thought  his  remarks  did  not  exonerate  the  motives  of 

!   'Mrs!  Beafie  ;  at  the  second  iritervjew,  the  Bishop,  I  thought,  was  too  anxious  to 

relieve  Mrs:  Beare's  motives^  and  to  avoid  impeaching  her  ireracity.     If  I  used 

t3ie  expression  'referred,  to  it;  must  have  .referred  to  this. 

J8.  Did  you  intend  to  convey  the  ideaiy  any  such  expression.,  that  the  Bishop 
.^a^  admitted  his  guilt  at.  the  second  'interview,.  and  therefore  had  falsely  denied  it 
at  .the  first?     • 
1  could  haves-  meant  no  sujch  thing,  for  the  -Bishop  did  not  admit  his  guilt  at  the 

•  -second  interview.     1  say  this  because  •!  could  not  have  forgotten  such  an  admis- 
sion) and'  because  the  conversation  }vhich  took  place  between  th£  Bishop  and  Dr. 
Mjlnor  at  the^  close  .  of  the  second"  interview,  was  inconsistent'  with  such  an  admis- 
sion havin'gbeen.made.  •  , 

•  19.  it  has  also  been  testified  toby  Dr.  Mijhor,  that  before  you  and  the  other  gen- 

-  tlernen  separated  after  the  second  interview,  and,  as  he.  thought,  at  the  corner  of 
Broadway  and  either  Franklin  or  Walker  street,  yon  made  a  remark  of  this  kind  to 
Mr.  Beare  :  '''You  were  very  forbearing  with  the  Bishop,  but  if  he  had  treated,  my 
wHe  6oj  1  would  have  kicked  him  out  of  the  house."    .Do  you  remember  that  or 
any  similar  remark  on  your  part,  and  if  so,  what  induced  yoa  to  make  it!     If  not, 
state  the  remark  you  did  make,  and  the  idea  you  intended  to  convey  to  Mr.]  Beare. 

I  think  it  very  likely  {hat  I  .  made  such  a  remark,  though  l,do  not  remember 
.'fct/  It,  however,  is  a  somewhat  'lighter  form  of  expression  than  I  should  be 
likely  to.  use  on  such  an  occasion  5  for  I  believed  then  asl  believe  now,  that  any 
than  who  really  thought  that  such  outrages  had  been  committed  upon  his  wife, 
would  have  deerjied  thttt  the  smallest  possible  measure  of  punishment.  I  certainly 
could  not  have  intended  by  tliat  remark  to  imply  my  belief  in  the  Bishop's  guilt. 
I  recollect  perfectly  well  at  the  time  that  ^believed  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Beare,  in 
his  forbearance,  inconsistent  with  the  charges  which,  .he  was  said  to  have  presented. 
•;  "120.  Did  any  thing  pass-after  the  close  of;the  second  interview  at  the  Bishop's, 
and  before  you  and  the  oth,er  gentlemen  separated,  which  induced  you  te  believe 
.  ."  •  '  '."  •'';•': 


141 

that  Dr.  Milnor  did  not  entertain  a  conviction  of  the  Bishop's  guilt  of  the  indecen- 
cies alleged  ?  If  so,  state  what  it  was". 

I  was  not  aware  wheti  we  separated,  that  (here  was  any  difference  olf  opinion  in 
the  matter,  between  Dr.  Milnor  and  myself.  -'I  do  .not  recollect  any.  declaration  of 
Dr.  Miln'or's  indicating  such  a  difference,  but  supposed  that  Ac,  no  more  than  I,  be- 
lieved in  the  Bishop's  criminality  ;  for  I  most  assuredly  could  not  have  agreed  with 
him  and  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  to  arrest  the  matter  there.*  had  I  believed  for  one  moment, 
that  the  Bishop  was  almost  an  adulterer  in  fact,  and  quite  an  adulterer  in  heart. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  Gadsden. 

24.  Was  there  an  agreement  or  was  there  not,  on  the  part  of  yourself,  Dr. 
Muhlenberg;,  Mr.  Beare,  and  Dr.  Milnor,  that  the  matter  should  not  be  made  known 
to  any  one  * 

There  teas  such  an  agreement  between  Dr. .  Muhlenberg,  Dr.  Milnor,  and 
jmyself.  Mr:  Beare^  I.  think,  was  present,  and  assented",  but  I  am  not  perfectly 
sure. 

25.  Was  there  any  thing  s*id  by  either  of  the  gentlemen  present,  on  the  subject 
of  this  agreement  V 

I  remember  only  the  fact  of  our  agreement— what  \ria'-said  particularly  I  do  not 
remember.  .  •  .  '  . '  . 

By  Bishop  De  Laocey.'  .    •         '  • 

26.  Was  this  a  written  or  a  verbal -agreement  ! 

Verbal.  '  ; 

27.  'Do  you  recollect  who  first  suggested  or  proposed  the  agreement  ? 

1  do  not.     It  was  not  a  subject  which  occasioned  any  difficulty  or  discussion. 

28:  How  long  a  time 'did  you  gentlemen  continue  together  after  you  left  the 
Bishop's  house  ;  and  where  did  you  separate  ! 

<  I  do  not  think  we  could  have,  continued  together  longer  than  fifteen  or  twenty 
minutes.  I  think  we  seoarated  somewhere  in  Franklin  street- — the  street  in  which 
the  Bishop  resides. 

Cross-Examinalion  resumed. 

36.  Was  the  agreement  spoken  of,  express  or  implied  1 

It  was  certainly  not  an  implied  one.  As'  nearly  as  I  can  recollect,  it  was  ex- 
pressed ;  and  I  have  conversed  with  Dr.  Milnor  on  the  subject  since.  He  told  me 
in  Philadelphia,  during  the  session  of  the  General  Convention,  that  he  had  sacredlj 
observed  the  agreement,  or  Words  to  that  effect ;  that  he  had  mentioned  the  matter 
to  no  one,  not  even  to  his.  wife. 

By  the  Court. 


By  Bishop  Doane.  

29.  You  said  you  did  not  recollect  who  first  proposed  the  agreement;  can  you 
recollect  whether  you  did  yourself? 

I  cannot  recollect  that  I  did.  It  seemed  to  be  a  result  in  which  we  consented 
almost  without  suggestion. 

The  Rev.  JOHN  DOWDNEY  was  again  called  up  as  a  witness  by  the  Coun- 
sel for  the  Respondent. 

Direct  Examination  resumed.  • 

24.  Were  you  familiar  with,  the  house,  which  was  occupied  by  the  family  of  the 
Misses  Rudderow,  in  the  summer  of  1841  ? 

I  have  been  frequently  there. 

25.  Have  you,  within  a  few  days  past,  examined  the  width  of  the  windows  of 
the  front  room  in  the  first  story,  which  .was  occupied  in  1841,  as  a  drawing-room  T 


142 

' 
I  have 

26.  What  was  the  width  of  each  of  those  windows 

(The  witness  produces  a  string,  measured  in  Court  as  two  feet  nine  and  a  quarter 
inches.)  This  is  the  width  of  the  opening  in  the  wall,  from  jamb  to  jamb. 

27.  How  deep  is  the  recess  in  each  of  those  windows  1 

(The  witness  produces  a  string,  measured  in  Court  as  one  and  a  half  inches.)  That 
is  the  depth. 

•38.  What  kind  of  a  house  is  that"? 

A  frame  house  ;  an  old-fashioned  frame  house. 

29.  Do  you  recollect  the  position  of  the  stairs,  leading  from  the  first  to  the  sec- 
ond story  ;  and  if  so,  were  they  so  situated  as  to  enable  a  person  coming  down  to 
see  into  the  drawing-room,  the  door  being  opened  ? 

The  stairs  start  nearly  opposite  the  door  of  this  drawing-room,  so  that  any  per- 
son coming  down  stairs  might  readily  perceive  what  was  going  on  in  the  room  near 
the  windows.  . 

30.  Can  you  state  the  width  and  length  of  the  hall  ? 

I  should  think  the  width  of. the  hall  about  six  feet;  the  length,  from  the  front 
door  to  the  back  door,  I  should  think  twenty-five  feet. 

Cross- Examination  resumed. 

89.  Did  you  measure  these  windows  yourself,  personally  1 
I  did. 

90.  Are  you  used  to  measuring  windows  ? 
No,  sir. 

91.  Can  you  be  quite  sure  that,  you  were  accurate  in  this  measurement  ? 
I  endeavored  to  be  very  accurate. 

92.  How  did  you  measure  ? 

I  had  assistance.  A  boy  held  the  string  at  one  end  ;  I  held  it  at  the  other,  and 
cut  it  off  with  my  knife. 

93.  Who  is  that  boy  ] 

A  son  of  Alderman  Towle. 

94.  Did  you  visit  that  house  at  the  time  when  the  Rudderows  lived  there,  so  a* 
to  know  that  the  room  in  which  you  measured  the  windows,  was  the  drawing- 
room1? 

No,  sir. 

95.  Were  there  any  fixtures  for  blinds  on  the  inside  when  you  went  there  T 

I  went  there  to  see  a  parishioner  of  mine,  who  removed  into  the  house  after  the 
Rudderows  left  it— Mr.  Wm.  H.  Mott. 

96.  Did  you  never  visit  that  house  when  the  Rudderows  lived  there  ? 
I  never  did. 

97.  Were  there  any  fixtures  for  shades  when  you  went  there  1 
I  do  not  recollect ;  I  cannot  say  positively. 

98.  On  which  side,  as  you  enter,  from  the  river  front,  is  the  drawing-room — the 
right  or  left  T 

On  the  left  as  you  enter  from  the  river  ;  on  the  right  as  you  face  the  river. 

99.  Which  way  does  the  door  open  into  the  drawing-room  ! 

I  cannot  say  with  certainty.  I  think  the  door'  opens  towards  the  window.  It 
swings  that  way.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  positive. 

100.  How  many  windows  are  there  in  the  room  T 
There  are  two,  and  a  door  opening  into  another  room. 

101.  Who  lives  there  now  T 
It  is  empty  ;  unoccupied. 

, 
Direct  Examination  resumed. 

31.  Is  there  a  crevice  between  the  door  and  the  casing,  when  it  is  open ;  and  if 
so,  what  is  the  width  of  it  ? 

Yes,  about  £  an  inch  wide. 


143 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 
102.  Did  you  measure  that  crevice  ? 
No. 

By  the  Court. 
By  Bishop  Lee. 

1.  What  should  you  estimate,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  size  of  the  drawing- 
room  in  question  to  be  ! 

I  cannot  say.     The  room  is  not  a  large  one  :  there  are  four  rooms  on  the  floor. 
Bv  Bishop  De  Lancey. 

2.  Did  you  examine  the  windows  of  the  other  rooms  of  the  house  on  the  sanw 
floor  1 

I  did  examine  other  windows,  and  found  them  of  the  same  width. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Respondent  read  to  the  Court  the  letter  from  the 
[lev.  James  Milnor.  D.  D.,  laid  before  the  Court  by  the  President,  and  the 
letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Milnor  to  the  Rev.  Paul  Trapier,  and  others, 
therein  enclosed. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  read  to  the  Court  the  letter  from  the 
Rev.  Paul  Trapier,  and  others,  to  which  the  letter  of  Dr.  Milnor  just  read 
was  a  reply. 

The  Counsel  on  both  sides  jointly  moved  an  adjournment,  that  they 
might  have  time  to  prepare  for  summing  up. 

The  motion  was  granted. 

The  Bishop  of  South  Carolina  moved  the  Court  to  pass  an  order,  in  the 
following  terms,  viz  : 

That  inasmuch  as  each  of  the  oharges  in  the  Presentment  has  been 
sustained  by  only  one  witness,  contrary  to  the  injunction  laid  down  by  the 
Apostle  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  v.  19,  that  the  Presentors  have 
leave  to  withdraw  it. 

The  Court,  on  motion,  heard  the  written  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  South 
Carolina,  and  proceeded  in  the  discussion  of  the  motion  to  pass  the  order 
proposed  by  him.  After  the  delivery  of  opinions  by  several  members,  the 
Court  postponed  the  order  for  future  advisement;  such  advisement  when 
taken,  to  be  without  further  discussion. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Tuesday,  December  31st,  1844,  > 
half-past  9  o'clock,  A.  M.        \ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois.  Connecticut.  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio.  New  Jersey,  the  Xorth  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
Louisiana,  Western  Xow  York,  South  Carolina,  Man-land,  and  Dela- 
ware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  ot'  Virginia ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachu- 
setts Rhode  Island,  ami  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  Clerk  moved  the  Court  that  he  be  allowed  the  assistance  of  a  sworn 
reporter,  to  take  the  arguments  of  Counsel  in  the  summing  up. 

Ordered,  That  the  motion  of  the  Clerk  be  granted,  provided  the  Counsel 
on  both  sides  consent,  and  apprr>ve  qf  the  person  employed  as  reporter. 

The  Bishop  of  South  Caroana  obtained  consent  of  the  Court  to  make 
the  following  entry  on  the  record,  viz.  : 
• 


144 

The  Bishop  of  South  Carolina,  though  he  has  the  utmost  confidence  in 
the  principle  he  asserted  in  the  order  which  he  prepared  for  consideration 
yesterday,  yet  asks  leave  to  withdraw  it,  for  the  present. 

JOHN  RUDDEROW  was  called  up  as  a. witness,  by  the  Counsel  for  the 
Presentment,  and  sworn  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  the  Commissioner,  &c. 

JAMES  ALEX.  HOUSTON,  M.  D.,  was  sworn,  faithfully  and  trirly  to  re- 
pODt  the  arguments  and  proceedings  in  this  Court,  for  the  use  of  the  Court, 
»ml  to  communicate  the  same  to  none  others,  by  Dayton  Hobart,  Esq.,  the 
Commissioner,  &c. 

JOHN  RUDDEROW  was  examined. 

Direct  Examination. 
JOHN  RUDDEROW  duly  sworn. 

1.  Are  you  the  brother  of  Miss  Jane^O.  Rudderow  * 
I  arn. 

2.  Did  she  reside  with  you  in  1841,  and  where?  . 
She  did,  in  61st-street,  near  the  East  River. 

3.  Do  you  remember  the  occasion  when  Bishop  Ohderdonk  dined  at  your  house  * 
I  remember  that  he  did  dine  there. 

4.  At  the  time  of  his  dining  there  in  1841,  was  this  one  of  the  shades  (Counsel 
kolds  up  a  window-shade)  before  .one  of  the  drawing-room  windows  ? 

It  was. 

5.  Were  the  windows  alike,  and  the  shades  of  the  same  dimensions  ? 
They  were. 

6.  Have  you  measured  this  shade  ?     If  so,  what  is  the  rength  al»d  breadth  T 
I  have.     It  is  seven  feet  long  by  three  feet  three  inches  broad. 

7.  Did  it  come  down  below  the  glass  of  the  window  ? 
It  did,  about  18  inches. 

8.  How  was  this  shade  hung — outside  of  the  casing,  or  inside;  and  how  far 
from  the  window  ? 

It  was  hung  outside  of  the  casing;  and  from  the  fixtures,  I  think  it  was  about 
four  inches  out  from  the  glass  of  the  lower  Bash. 

9.  Did  you  hang  it  yourself? 
I  did.    ' 

10.  What  is  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  hall  ? 
I  never  measured  it.     I  cannot  answer. 

Cross-Examination. 

1.  What  was  the  height  of  the  bottom  of  the- window  from  the  floor.? 
About  two  and  a  half  feei. 

2.  What  were  the  dimensions  of  that  room  ? 

I  cannot  tell.  I  never  had  occasion  to  .measure  it  myself..  If  I  should  guess  (it- 
is  nearly  "three  years  since  we  lived  there)  it  is  about'  10  by  1&. 

By  the  Court. 

By  Bishop  De  Lancey, 

1.  Did  the  recess  of  the  window  extend  to  the  floor  ? 

It  being  a  hard-finished  wall,  there  was  a  wooden  wainscoting  immediately  below 
each  window. 

2.  Did  the% lower  sill  of  the  window  extend  into  the  room  ? 
I  am  not  very  certain  about  that.     I-think  it  likely  it  was. 
By  Bishop  Hopkins. 

3.  How  deep  was  the  whole  wall  of  the  house,  from  the  inside  plastering  to  the 
outside  of  the  weather-boards  ? 

I  never  measured  that.     I  should  think  from  six  to  eight  inches. 


Direct  Examination  resumed.  '  , 

11.  You  said  the  recess  was  how  deep  * 

Two  inches  and  a  half,  from  the  lower  sash  to 'the  outside  of,  the 'casing 

Cross-Examination  resumed. ' 

3.  Is  it  more  thatran  inch  and  a  half  from  the  outside  of  the:  moulding? 
It  is  two  and  a  half  inches  to  the  sash-     I  should  judge  it  was  one  and  a  half 
inch  to  the  moulding;  •      :  ..      .  "••         ,',.'/•--. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Presentment  put  in  an  affidavit  of  the  -service  , of  the 
citation  of  the  Court  upon  Miss  Rebecca  P.  Hiker,  which  was  read,  and , did- 
dered to  be  filed.  .  '  •  . 

•DAVID. GRAHAM,  Esq.,  of  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  .then  pro- 
ceeded to  address  the  Court,  as  follows  : 

May  it  please  the  Court  ':— We  have  at  length  reached  that  stage- in  this 
important  and  solemn  investigation,  -Avhen.it  becomes  my  duty^  as  one  of 
the  Counsel  for-  the  accused,  to.  address  you  on  his  behalf.  'In  .entering' 
upon  the  performance  of  my  duty,  I  but  do  justice  to  my  own  feelings. 
when  I  say,  that  I  do  so-with  a  degree  of  embarrassment  .such  as  -it:  has 
rarely  been  my  lot  to  experience.  It  5s  not  froni  any  want  of  confidencje 
in  the  innocence  and  integrity  of  m'y  .client, /and  it!  certainly  is  not  from 
any  distrust  of  the  impartiality  of-  his  judges,  that  I  say  this  ;  but,  feeling 
as  I  sensibly  do,  the  novelty  of  my  own  position— appreciating  the-  extra- 
ordinary course  wliich  has  characterized  this  prosecution,- and  disappointed, 
as  I  certainly  am,  at  the  manner  in  which  it.  has  been  .conducted,  after  the 
professions  of  fairness  and  impartiality' which  Avere  made  in  the- opening 
of  the1  case,  I  cannot  but  entertain  the  sentiment  to. which  I  have  referred. 

At  the  outset  of  thig  case,  the  Court,  the  accused,  and  his  Counsel,  were 
led  to  believe  that  the  Counsel  who  represented  the.  prosecutors,,  and  the     . 
Right  Reverend  Presenters  themselves,  intended.simply  to  .place  the  facts 
before  the  Court,  as  ivell  on  the  part  of  the  accused,  as  on  that  of  th« 
Presentment;  and  the  learned  gentlemen. who  represent  the  prosecution 
here,  certainly  did  not  hold  out  any  reason  to  justify  the  Court'  in  believ- 
ing, that  it  Avould  be  conducted  on  the-principles  on  which  controversies  in 
oourts  of  law  are  conducted;  or  that  the  zeal  and  ingenuity. of. Counsel  . 
were  ta.be  pressed  into  the  case,  for  the  purpose  of,  enforcing  pn  the  judg- 
ment of  tho  Court;  a  conclusion  favorable  to'  the  side  on  which  their  selr- ' . 
vices  were  enlisted. 


ciate, 
defei 

be  easy,  and  that  my  responsibility  would  be  light.  I  supposed  tliat  the 
extent  of  my  task  woiilij  be  to  aid,'  by  counsel  and  advice:,  the 'accused,  .by 
offering  suggestions  as  to  his  legal  rights.  I 'had  no  idea — had  1  enter- 
tained su'ch  an  idea,  I.  would  have  shrunk  from  this  contest— that  I  was 
entering  here  on  the  trial  of  a  case' strictly  as  Counsel,  to  perform  the  mere 
duties  of  that  office,  or  that  I  was  coming,  before  the  Court  for  the -pur- 
pose of  contending,  with -the  learned. Counsel. on  the 'other  side,  in  a  st-rjjfe 
for  victory  and  success.  '  • 

I  make  these  remarks,  may  it  please  the  Court,  nof'for  the  purpose  'of. 
impeaching  the  motrves  of  the  learned  Counsel  oh  .'the  bth£r  'side,  or.thp^1' 
whom,  they  represent  on'  this  occasion .;'  but  1  maie  them  for  the  purpose 

...  .19 


'   .         «   * 

146 

•  ;     •  i  '.    '    '    '       ••  •   r^ i 

of  directing  the  attention  of  this  venerable  Court  to  tho  duty  which  they 
are  now  called  upon  to  perform.  I'am  sensible  that  in  the  discharge  of 
my  duty,  .1  shall  fall  far  short  of  what  may  be  expected — not  of  mj  self,  for 
I  know  that  little  can  be  expected  from  me-r-but  far  short  of  that  which  the 
occasion  calls  for,  a,nd  which  the  duty  to  the  accused,  on  thg  part  of  Coun- 
sel, would  seem  to  impose  on  those  occupying  that  relation  to  him.  So 
much  the  more  is  the  responsibility  of  this  Court  enhanced  ;  so  much  the 
more  solemn  becomes  the  duty  they  are  called  upon  to  discharge.  And  I 
have  said  what  I  have,  that  the  responsibility  may  be  thrown  from  me, 
and  devolved  entirely  upon  those  wno,  in  the  event  of  this  case,  are  to 
determine  on  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused.  .  You,  his  judges, 
stand  hereto  determine  an  issue  infinitely -.more  important  to  him  than 
one  of  life  or  death.  You  stand  here  to  determine  whether  a  man  who  has 
grown  grey  in  the  midst  of  this  community — who  has  partaken,  in  no  limit- 
ed measure,  of  th(J  honors  and  ttie  respect  of  the  society  in  which  he  has 
lived — who  has  risen  to  dignity  and  rank  .in  the  Church  of  which  he  has 
long  been  an  honored  minister,  and  is  now  an  honored  head,  is  to  be  dis- 
graced, in  the  bosom  of  that  Church  and  in  the  centre  of  that  society  to 
which  h^ 'has  been  an  ornament.  You,  I  say,  are  to  dispose  .of  this 
issue,  and  I  trust  that  I  am  not  travelling  beyond  my  duty  in  saying  that  I 
anticipate  from  the  result  at  which  you  are  to  arrive,  a  full  realization  of  all 
thfe  consequences  which  may  follow  an  adverse  judgment.  If  the  accused 
be  guilty  of  immorality — if  he  have  dishonored  and  disgraced  the  Church 
of  which  he  is  one  of  the  heads — if  he  have  become  an  unworthy  member 
of  ths  community  in  which  he  lives,  you,  as  the  fathers  of  that  Church, 
are  bound  to  punish  him,  and  to  punish  him  severely.  But  if  this  assault 
has  been  made  upon  him  for  other  and  ulterior  purposes — if  you  are  sought 
to  be  made  the  instruments  of  striking  him  down  for  the  purpose  of  grati- 
fying other  motives  than  those  which  should  have  been  legitimately  con- 
nected with  this  prosecution — and  if  you  find  that  of  these  charges  he  is 
not  guilty,  and  that  the  motives  alleged  did  not  properly  attach  themselves 
to  his  conduct,  then  I  call  upon  you  to  perform  what  I  know  will  be  to  you 
all.  a  grateful  and  pleasing  duty,  that  of  restoring  him  with  unblemished 
reputation  to  society,  to  the  Church,  and  to  the  bosom  of  that  family  of 
which  he  is  the  honored  and  revered  head. 

With  these  preliminary  remarks,  which  are  perhaps  entirely  unneces- 
sary to  the  tribunal  before  whom  I  have  now  the  honor  of  appearing,  I 
shall  proceed,  as  briefly  as  possible,  to  discharge  the  duty  which  rests  upon 
me.  In  doing  so,  it  will  be  to  me  a  matter  of  deep  regret  that  I  shall  be 
compelled  to  occupy  necessarily  much  of  the  time  of  the  Court;  but  I 
trust  that  my  apology  will  be  amply  found  in  the  satisfaction  which  every 
member  of  the  Court  will  experience,  in  having  given  a  full  and  fair  hear- 
ing to  the  grounds  of  defence  which  that  duty  will. require  me  to  present. 

In  order  that  the  remarks  which  I  have  to  make  may  be  the  more 
readily  understood,  and  that  each  portion  of. the  argument  which.  I  intend 
to  address  to  the  Court  may  naturally  follow  upon  the  other,  I  shall  divide 
the  consideration  of  this  case  into  three  grand  propositions. 

In  the  FIRST  place,  I  shall  inquire  what  is  the  charge  upon  which  the 
accused  is  on  trial  ? 

In  the  SECOND  place.  I  shall  direct  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  those  prin- 
ciples'of  divine  and  human  law  ly  which  the  determination  of  that  charge  is 
to  be  ascertained  and  proved  : 


147 

An-J  in  the  THIRD  place,  I  shall  proceed  lo  consider  the  evidence  ly  which 
the  charge  is  sought  to  be  sustained. 

First,  then — what  is  the  charge  against  the  accused  ? 

By  the  recent  Canon  adopted  by  the  General  Convention,  it  is  provided 
that  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  shall  be  on  a  presentment  in  writing,  specifying 
the  oft'enccs  of  which  the  accused  is  alleged  to  have  been  guilty,  with  rea- 
sonable reference  to  time,  place,  and  circumstance.  Such  presentment 
may  be  made  for  any  crime  or  immorality — for  heresy — or  for  violation 
of  the  constitution  or  Canons  of  the  Church.  The  Canon  then  proceeds  to 
prescribe  the  mode  in  which  the  presentment  is  to  be  made.  Under  this 
Canon. the  Rt.  Rev.  Presenters,  being  three  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Church, 
have  made  a  Presentment,  the  charge  in  which  is  in  the  following  words : 
14  The  undersigned,  that  is  to  say,  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Meade,  Bishop  of 
the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Virginia ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  James  Hery'ey 
Ott  y,  Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Tennessee  ;  the  Rt.  Rev. 
Stephen -Elliott,  Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Georgia,  do 
hereby,  in.  virtue  of  the  canonical  authority  reposed  in  them,  present  to 
their  brother  Bishops,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  Bish- 
op of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  as  being  guilty 'of  im- 
.norality  and  impurity  in  the  several  specifications  hereinafter  more  par- 
ticularly set  forth  :  and  they  do  hereby  solemnly  demand  a  trial  of  -the 
said  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Canons  of'  the  General  Convention  of  the  said  Ch'urch  in  such  case  made 
and  provided."  They,  present  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  as 
"being  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity."  That  is  the  charge — and 
this  charge  is  sought  to  be  sustained,  both  by  the  specifications  subsequent- 
ly set  forth,  and  the  evidence  adduced  in  their  support.  The  charge 
against  the  Bishop  then  is,  that  he  is  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity  ; 
and  the  question  now  before  this  Court  is,  whether  that  charge  has  been 
justained  by  the  evidence  adduced. 

From  the  course  of  the  trial  it  would  seem  to  have  been  supposed  by 
the  learned  Counsel  on  the  other  side,  (and  some  of  the  members  of  the 
CJourt  may  have  entertained  a  similar  impression,)  that  the  only  question 
before  this  Court  is,  whether  the  several  specifications  which  are  set  forth 
as  evidence  of  this  charge,  have  been  proved,  and  whether  the  Respondent 
is  guilty  of  the  matters  contained  in  those  specifications.  I  desire  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Court  to  what  I.  regard  as  an  error  in  this  respect. 
The  question  is  one  of  immorality  and  impurity  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop, 
with  -reference  to  the  time  of  presenting  this  charge,  unfitting  him  for  the 
discharge  of  the  duties  of  his  office  ;  and  the  specifications-  are  but  the 
particulars  of  the  facts  from  which  the  inference  of  this  present  immorality 
and  impurity  is  sought  to  be  drawn,  on  the  part  of  the  Presenters.  The 
question  before  the  Court,  then,  and  the  decision  sought  in  this  case,  is 
whether  the  Respondent,  by  reason  of  any  facts  which  are  proved  or  al- 
leged against  him,  possesses  now  such  an  immoral  and  impure  heart  and 
mind  as  to  render  it  improper  that  he  should  be  longer  allowed  to  minister 
in  the  sacred  office  which  he  fills. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  correctness  of  this  position,  and  to  show  that  I  am 
quite  correct  in  stating  this  to  be  the  true  and  only  issue  before  the  Court, 
let  me  suppose  a  case  fully  exemplifying  the  meaning  of  my  argument. 
Suppose- that  the  charge  was,  that  the  Respondent  is  guilty  of  immorality 
and  impurity  by  reason  of  certain  specifications,  setting  forth,  .that  on  a 


single  occasion,  seven  years  ago,  he  had  been  intoxicated— that  oo  another 
occasion,  eigttt  years  aga,  he  had  been  intoxicated — and  that  in  another 
instance,  six  years  ago,  he  had  been  intoxicated— and  setting  forth  six*  or 
seven  different  occasions  on  which  he  had  been  in  a  state  of  intood'catioa, 
all  of  them  occurring  moce  than  three  years  ago,  but  without  any  allega- 
tion .of  a  habit  of  intoxication,— would  the  Court,  though  every  one  of  the 
specifications  we.re  proved  precisely  as  alleged,  presume  the  Respondent 
tp  be  immoral  and  impure,  by  reason  of  the  truth  of  the§e  specifications  ? 
Would  they  not  permit  the  principle  of  forgiveness. and  atonement  of  these, 
errors  on  his  part  ?.  Would  they  not  say,  that  although  the  facts  were 
.proved,  yet  that  ihey  were  isqlated  facts,  not  entering  iijto  the  general 
compositioa:  of  his  character?  Would  .they  .riot  say  that  they  did  riot 
•  proVe  a  gerie'ral  -habit  of  intoxication,  and,  as  a  consequence,  that  he  was 
not  lo  be  regarded  as  thereby  unfitted  for  the  exercise  of  the  holy  office 
.  'frprh  which' he  was  sought  to  be  deposed  ? 

I  put  thjs  as  an  illustration ;  .and  it  is  the  stronger,  .inasmuch  as  one  of 
the.  very  specifications,  in  -this  Presentment  contains  an  allegation  jb'at  in 
J.B37  he  had  allowed  -himself,  to  .drink  too  freely  of  vinous  or  spirituous 
lujuors.;  and  1  therefore  adduce.it  as  an  illustration,— not  as  a  possible  case, 
-*-but  one  growing  out  of  the  facts  now  before  the  Court ;  and  I  agajn  ask, 
Whether,.;!!  such  speqifications  had  been  made  as  of  themselves  did  not  show 
an  uniform  habit  unfitting,  the  Respondent  for  the  performance  of  the  du- 
ties of  his  Episcopal  office  on  a  -general  •  charge  of  immorality;  he  could* 
.be  convicted,  ?  .-.  "»...'  '  .  '  •  .  •  . 

•  I  shall  :perljaps  have  occasion,  hereafter,  to  enlarge  upon- this  argument ; 
butjn  the /outlet  I -lay  down  this  proposition  without  stopping  further  to  il-' 
lustrate  it. .  But  while  upon'this  subject  I  "take  leave  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Court  to  another  error  winch  seems  to  have  crept  into  the  management 
of  this  case-oil  the,part  of  the  prosecution,  and  of  \yhich  it  is.  proper  that  tbe: 
mind  of -the  'Court  should,  .be 'disabused/  I  have  already  referred  to  what 
I  regard  as  the  error  of  corisidering  these  specifications  :as  specific  crimes 
alleged  ag'atyist  the  Respondent,  on  account,  of  which,  if  he  should  be  .con- 
victed,' this  Court  tvould  be'  bound  to  inflict  punishment  upon  him.  I  now 
refer  to  another,  and  which,  when  presented  to  the  mind  of  the  Court,  will 
'strike  them.,' I  tiling,  with  very  .-great  force.  .  ',;  • 

It  seems  to  have,  been  supposed  by  the  learned  Cqunsel  oil  the  other  side 
$»at  this  Court  are  sitting  in  the. investigation  of  these  charges;  in  the  char- 
acter and  capacity  of  a  jury;  and  that  it  is.  their  duty  simply. to  find  the 
facts,  and;  to  determine  whether  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  specifications  has 
been  ascertained  and  established. 

In  the  courts  pf  law,  where  the  different  functions  of  judge,  and  jury  are 
distributed  among  different  officers,  and   ulterior  poyvers  are  a«sig'ned  not 
•merely  to  the  court,  but  also  to  executive; officers,  in  relation  to;a  charge 
•  .      Jyreferredj.tlus. position  would  be  perfectly  sound.     In  such  a  court,  when 
the  party  .is- charged  with. any  particular  offence,  he  is  called  upon  to  plead 
.  '    to  the  imlidment ;  the  issue  upon,  which  is  tovbe  sub'mitt.ed  tp  the  -jury  as  to 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the.  fact  alleged.     The  jury  have  nothing,  to  do  but. 
to  determine  whether  the  charge  bepro\'ed  or  not.  and  a  verdict  of  "  guilty," 
or  "not  guilty, ".is  the  mere  traverse  of  the  issue,  whether  the  charge  be  true 
or  fal§e.     Thip  function  of  the  jury  then  ceases ;  and  the  function  of -the 
court  begins  ;'• and  the  question  for  them  is,  whether^  assuming  the  .facts  to 
•bep>oved  as  tlie  jury  have  found,  them,  they  constitute  a  crime  for  which 

'  '  •  '  '  -   '.  •  •.•'•."'" 


149 

the  party  can  legally  be  punished.  If  there  be  no  crime,  it  is  then  the  duty 
of  the  court,  notwithstanding  the  finding  of  the  jury,  to  arrest  the  judgment, 
and  not  permit  the  party,  to  be  sentenced  on  the  conviction.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  find  that  there  is  a  crime  in  the  matters  alleged,  the  function  of 
the  Court  then  is  to  pronounce  judgment  on  the  guilty  party.  If  the  case 
should  be  of  such  a  character  as  that  that  judgment  should  not  be  carried 
into  effect,  by  reason  of  a  long  life  of  virtue  after  the  commission  of  the 
offence,  or  other  facts  and  circumstances  entitling  the  party  to  the  merciful 
consideration  of  the  government,  the  executive  function  then  commences, 
and  the  act  of  pardon  becomes  its  province.  • 

Here,  then,  we  have  in  the  civil  government  three  separate  functions  ;  that 
of  the  jury  to  find  the  fact;  that  of  the  Court  to  determine  whether  a  crime 
be  involved  in  tha.t  fact,  and  whether  sentence  is  to  be  pronounced  ;  and 
that'of  the  executive,  to  decide  whether  under  the  fact  as  proved,  and  the 
sentence  as  pronounced,  judgment  should  be  carried  into  effect.  In  eccle- 
siastical cases,  this. Court  unite  in  their  action  the  functions  of  all  these  de- 
partments, which  in  the  civil  institutions  of  .the  State  are  distributed  as  I 
have  just  described.  In  such  cases  it  is  for  this  Court  to  decide,  first,  wheth- 
er, if  the  charges  be  proved,  they  constitute  a  crime,  subjecting  the  accused 
to  punishment ;  in  the  second  place,  whether,  if  they  do  constitute  a  crime, 
such  a  length  of  time  .have  not  intervened,  or  such  a  course  of  virtuous  life 
apd  action  have  not  been  shown,  .as  to  render  the  Respondent  not  a  fit  sub- 
ject of  punishment,  but  to  entitle  him  to  be  discharged  from  the  bar  of  the 
Court.'  In  a  word,  this.  Court  is  to  decide  the  fact — the  question  of  crime — 
the  sentence — and  whether  the  sentence  is  to  be  carried  into  effect.: 

I  therefore  suppose  that  in  narrowing,  as  the  opposite  Counsel  have  en- 
deavored to  do,  the  inquiry  to  the  mere  ground  of  ascertaining  whether  the 
facts  alleged  are  proved  or  not,  there  is  an  e.ntire  misapprehension  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  functions  of  this-Court,  and  the  character  of  their  duty,  and 
that  they  must  pass  upon  the,  questions  I  have  suggested,. be  fore  (hey  arrive 
•at  the  result  of  their  deliberations  in  this  case.  And  the  result  of  thes« 
principles  is  that  the  Court  must,  if  it  decide  that  the  specifications,  not  the 
charge — for  I  wish  that  distinotion  to  be  borne  in  mind — have  been  proved — • 
then  proceed  to  determine  whether  after  all,  a  crime  has  been  committed — 
.whetherthe  existing  "immorality  and -impurity, "charged  in  the  Presentment, 
be  in  point  of  fact  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  truth  of  these  facts,  and  even 
then,  if  the'Court  arrive  at  this  conclusion,  that  they  are  to  take  into  view 
the  life  and  character  of  the  party,  the  rarity  of  the  acts  charged,  and  the 
various  motives  to  be  attributed  to  them,  and  as  a  consequence  of  all,  to  de- 
termine whether  he  is. a  proper  object  of  censure  or  punishment. 

If  I  am  correct  in  the  view. which  I  have  suggested,  that  this  is  a  charge 
of  present  "  immorality,"  and  that  it  is  a  question  of  the  present  unfitness  of 
the  Bishop  for  continuance. in  his  office,  let  me  again  suggest  to  the  mind 
of  the  Court,  not  for  the  purpose  of  inducing' them  to  reconsider  the  decision 
which  I  .understand  them  to  have  made, — that  no  legal  bar  or  limitation,  by 
reason  of  mere  lapse  of  time,  would  be  recognised, — how  far  the  charge  of 
present  immorality  can  be  sustained  by  the  proof  offacts  long  gone  by,  and 
not  of  themselves  necessarily  rendering  the  .mind  of  the  party  accused  im- 
pure and  immoral  ?  In  other  words,  I  may  put  to  the  Court  the  question, 
aijd  I  do  so,  as'  introductory  to  the  discussion  of  the  second  proposition  of 
my  argument,  upon  which  I  now  enter,  whether,  as  a  matter  of  legal  con- 
clusion or  fair  inference,  without  invoking  any  arbitrary  rule  of  law  in  it8 
support,  the  charge  of  present  unfitness,  arising  from  "  immorality  and 


150 

impurity,"  can  for  one  moment  be  sustained  by  isolated  instances,  if  you 
please,  of  intoxication,  occurring  several  years  back  ?  In  doing  so,  I  shall  not, 
however,  present  it  as  matter  of  mere  legal  objection  to  which  they  are  bound 
to  yield,  but,  in  anofher  view,  when  I  come,  as  {  presently  shall,  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  evidence  by  which  the  charges  against  the  accused  must  be 
sustained. 

Ft  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  that  there  is  no  charge,  no  pretence  of  charge, 
ngainst  the  Respondent,  excepting  those  which  appear  in  the  specifications 
before  the  Court.  It  is,  I  say,  conceded,  for  although  I  am  aware  that  there 
is  in  the  specifications  themselves,  and  the  last  one  particularly,  which  was 
stricken  out  by  the  Court,  a  clause,  imputing  general  immorality  to  the  Re- 
spondent, and  though  I  am  fully  aware  that  efforts  have  been  studiously 
made  to  poison  the  mind  of  this  whole  community,  and  which  may  prob.ibly 
have  reached  the'ears  of  this  Court,  with  the  belief  that  other  and  numer- 
ous similar  charges  can  truly  be  alleged,  yet  I  call  upon  the  learned  Coun- 
sel to  join  with  me  in  the  admission,  that  there  is  no  pretence  of  any  charge, 
except  the  four  or  five  cases  attempted  to  have  been  proved,  occurring  du- 
ring the  last  seven  or  eight  years  against  the  accused.  And  the  very  re- 
mark made  by  the  Counsel,  at  the  close  of  the  evidence,  that  the  Court  are 
bound  to  exclude  from  their  consideration  every  matter  not  proved  in  evi- 
dence, not  being  even  authorized  to  decide  on  any  information  which  they 
themselves  possess,  though  it  might  be  positive  information  on  matter  of  fact, 
if  independent  of  the  evidence  offered  on  the  trial,  I  invoke,  in  support  of 
the  allegation,  that  on  this  record,  in  every  incident  and  instance,  except- 
ing the  four  or  five  cases  which  are  presented  before  the  Court,  the  Re- 
spondent stands  before  this  community,  and  before  this  Court,  without  taint 
and  without  reproach. 

Assuming  it  then  as  true,  that  there  is  one  offence  in  1837 — another  in 
1833 — two  others  in  1841 — and  one  in  1842 — I  ask  the  attention  of  the 
Court  to  the  principles  on  which  a  case  involving  such  facts,  occurring  at 
such  remote  periods  of  time,  ought  to  be  determined. 

The  learned  Counsel  will  not  deny  the  proposition, — which  I  do  not  in- 
voke the  aid  of  authority  to  sustain,  because  I  am  not  desirous  of  burden- 
ing, unnecessarily,  the  patience  of  the  Court — that  it  is  a  principle  well 
settled,  and  long  practised  upon  at  common  law,  until  reduced  to  the  form 
of  a  statute,  that  in  the  prosecution  of  any  demand,  or  in  the  case  of  an 
allegation  of  crime  of  a  stale  character,  every  intendment  is  to  be  made 
in  favor  of  the  innocence  of  the  party.  It  was,  and  is,  indeed,  a  principle 
of  law,  that  every  person  is  to  be  held  innocent  until  proved  guilty  :  but 
when  the  charge  was  an  ancient  one — when  by  reason  of  the  impossibility 
of  explanation — or  of  recollecting  distinctly  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
party  was  placed  at  the  time — it  was  fairly  presumable,  as  a  moral  con- 
clusion, that  the  party  might  be  innocent,  and  yet  not  able  ^o  prove  himself 
so,  the  common  law  applied  this  principle  with  greater  force,  and  pre- 
sumed the  innocence  of  the  party  more  strongly  than  in  a  case  of  nee  nt 
origin.  It  was  a  ruie,  applicable  not  merely  to  the  enforcement  of  private 
right,  but  also  to  the  punishment  of  public  wrong,  that  if  a  case  were 
brought  before  the  Court  after  a  great  lapse  of  time,  it  might  be  fairly  in- 
ferred, that  although  the  evidence  might  be  strong  against  him,  the  party 
might  be  at  a  loss  to  explain,  consistently  with  his  innocence,  and  the  law, 
therefore,  stepped  in  and  afforded,  or  at  least  presumed,  a  sufficient  expla- 
nation. 

This  principle  existed  at  common  law,  and  was  applied  to  the  peculiar 


151 


facts  and  circumstances  of  each  particular  case.  There  was -no  precise 
period  limited  within  which  a  debt  could  be  sued  for,  or  a  crime  prosecuted, 
or  the  assertion  of  private  right,  or  vindication  of  public  right  against  pub- 
lic wrong,  presented.  But  in  each  particular  case,  according  to  its  cir- 
cumstances, the  presumption  was  made  in  favor  of  the  party.  The  evi- 
dence of  this  principle,  and  the  necessity  of  establishing  some  general,  and 
if  you  please,  arbitrary  rule,  led  to  the  enactment  in  England,  and  in  the 
States  of  this  Union,  of  the  statute  of  limitations.  This  statute  was  not  de- 
signed to  lay  down  any  new  rule  or  principle.  It  was  not  intended  for  the 
first  time  to  assert  the  principle  that  a  strong  presumption  existed  against 
the  fairness  of  an  attempt  to  overhaul'  an  old  transaction,  but  it  was  design- 
ed to  limit  the  lime  when  causes  of  action  could  be  presented  for  judicial 
inquiry.  By  it  an  action  on  a  bond  was  limited  to  twenty  years — on  a  book 
account,  or  mercantile  transaction,  or  contract,  evidenced,  for  example,  by  a 
promissory  note,  to  six  years — for  assault  and  battery  to  four  years — for 
slander  to  two  years.  So  also  in  criminal  cases  ;  according  to  the  statutes 
of  Great  Britain,  and,  I  believe,  of  every  State  in  this  Union,  a  party  can- 
not be  called  on  to  answer  any  criminal  accusation,  or  placed  on  his 
defence  on  any  criminal  charge,  after  the  lapse  of  three  years  from  the  time 
of  the  alleged  commission  of  the  offence  ;  the  only  exception  being  in  the 
case  of  murder,  for  the  obvious  reason,  that  discovery  may  not  take  place 
till  long  after  the  act,  from  the  flight  of  the  guilty  party  or  other  causes, 
which  may  render  the  prosecution  impossible  within  any  definite  period  of 
time.  But  in  treason — a  capital  offence — in  highway  robbery — in  arson — 
in  all  the  higher,  and  lower,  and  intermediate  grades  of  offences,  the  pro- 
visions of  the  statute  have  fixed  the  period  of  three  years  as  that  beyond 
which  no  inquiry  shall  be  made  into  any  criminal  accusation  against  a 
party.  The  guilt  is  not  the  less  flagrant ;  but  the  law  wisely  and  humane- 
ly presumes  an  actual  explanation  to  be  impossible,  by  reason  of  the  lapse 
of  time,  and  throws  around  him  its  protecting  shield.  It  does  not.  grant  im- 
punity to  crime,  nor  does  it  regard  the  punishment  of  the  offenci  as  less 
desirable  for  all  the  purposes  for  which  punishment  is  inflicted  ;  but  it  will 
not  permit  a  man  to  be  put  upon  the  necessity  of  explanation  or  defence  of 
acts  apparently  inconsistent  with  his  innocence,  after  tlio  lime  to  which  I 
have  alluded,  from  considerations  of  policy  as  wise  as  they  an?  humane. 

I  allude  to  this  principle,  not,  as  1  have  said,  for  the  purpose  of  inducing 
the  Court  to  reconsider  or  change  their  decision  that  no  legal  bar  exists,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  inviting  their  attention  to  the  wisdom  of  the  common  law 
rule,  or  limitation,  on  this  subject,  in  order  that  its  soundness  may,  in  some  de- 
gree, guide  their  judgment  and  discretion  in  determining  upon  the  character 
and  degree  of  proof  and  explanation  required  on  the  part  of  the  Respondent, 
accused  as  he  is  of  transactions  which  have  long  since  occurred,  and  which, 
at  this  distance  of  time,  however  innocent  he  may  be,  it  is  impossible  to  ex- 
plaiu.  Surely,  if  it  be  wise  and  politic  that  a  man  who  has  offended  against 
the  laws  of  the  State  by  the  most  flagrant  criminality,  shall  not  be  called 
upon  to  defend  his  acts  after  three  years  have  elapsed  from  the  time  of  their 
commission — surely,  upon  every  principle  of  common  sense,  and  reason, 
and  humanity,  this  Court  should  say  that  the  Respondent  ought  not  to  be 
called  upon  to  explain  acts  evanescent  in  their  character,  committed  five,  six, 
or  seven  years,  or,  as  in  one  of  the  instances  in  this  case,  eight  years  ago. 
And  surely,  acting  on  this  sound  and  benign  principle  of  the  common  law, 
you  will  make  the  intendment  which  both  the  statute  and  common  law  have 


152 

made,  and  give  the  party  the  benefit  of  the  presumption  of  innocence,. even 
although  entirely  unable  to  explain  his  conduct.      '       • 

The  Counsel  on  the  other  side  will  probably  say  that  I  am  invoking 
principles  and  statutes  which  have  been  frowned  upon  by  the  Courts  as 
bolstering  up  dishonest  defences,  and  that  in  a  court  of  conscience  like  this, 
they  should  not  prevail.  Lest  such  an  argument,  which  is.  not  an  uncom- 
mon one,  should  be  resorted  to  against  me,  1  invite  the  attention  of  the 
•  Court  to  the  language  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  jurists  in  the  land— 
Mr.  Justice  Story — upon  the  character  and  effect  of  these  presumptions,  and 
of  the  statutes  to  which  I  have  alluded,  as  designed  lo  give  them  perfect  ef- 
ficacy. In  the  case  of -Bell  vs.  Morrison,  1  Peters'  U.'  S.  Reports,  360, 
that  learned  judge  observes :  "  It  has  often  been  a  matter  of  regret,  in 
modern  times,  that  in  the  construction  of  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  deci- 
sions bad  not  proceeded  upon -principles  better  adapted  to  carry  into  effect 
the  r^al  objects  of  the  statute  ;  that,  instead  of  being  viewed  in  an  unfavor- 
able light  as  an  unjust  and  discreditable  defence,  it  had  received  such  sup- 
port as.  would  have  made  it  what  it  was  intended  to  be.,  emphatically,  a  stat- 
ute of  repose.  It  is  a  wise  a.nd  beneficial  law,  not  designed  merely  to  raise 
a  presumption  of  payment  of  a  just  debt,  from  lapse  of  time,  but  to  -afford 
security  against  stale  demands,"  (and  for  a  stronger  reason,  against  stale 
prosecutions,]  "after  the  true  state  of  the  transaction  may  have  been  for- 
gotten, or  be  incapable  of  explanation,  by  reason  of  the  death  or  removal 
pf  Witnesses.  It  has  a  manifest,  tendency  to  produce  speedy  settlements  of 
accounts,  and  lo  suppress  those  prejudices. which  may  rise  up  at  a  distonct 
of  lime,  and  baffle  every  honest  effort  lo  counteract  or  overcome  them." 

To  this  last  expression  I  particularly  call  the  attention  .of  the  Court,  as 
embodying  most  strongly  the  reason  of  the  rule  of  construction  so  clearly 
enforced,  and  as  most  emphatically  applicable  to  the  case  now  before  them  ; 
as1  will  be,  perhaps,  more  apparent  when  we  come  to  look  at  some  of  the  mo- 
tives which  have  influenced  this  prosecution. 

Here,  then,  is  a  principle  of  the  common  law  carried  out  in  the  statute* 
of  every  state  in  this  Union,  taken  from  the  early  establishment  of  the  prin- 
ciple, both  at  common  law  and  by  statute,  in  the  mother  country,  regarded 
as  a  statute  or  principle  of  repose,  for  the  protection  of  a  party  from  being 
called  upon  to  answer  to  an  unjust  demand,  or  an  unjust  allegation,  after  a 
period  of  time  when  the  law  steps  in  with  its. wise  and  benign  presumption, 
and  says  he  ought  not  to  be  called  upon  to  answer,  because,  presuming  him 
to  be  innocent,  from  the  very  staleness  of  the  allegation  or  charge  itself,' 
and  by  reason  of  accidents  to  which  human  nature  is  subject,  calculated  to 
prevent  the  proof  of  his  innocence;  they  will  regard  his  defence  as  estab- 
lished by  the  mere  presumption  of  the  law  itself. 

But  to  show  that  this  rule  is  not  confined  to  the  courts  of  common  law, 
but  has  been  applied  by  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts  in  England,  I  will  now 
advert  to  an  authority  more  analogous  to  the  principles  on  which  this  Court 
proceeds,  and  perhaps  therefore  the  more  binding  on  the  consciences  of  the 
members  of.  this  venerable  tribunal.  I  refer  to  the  case  of  Bennett  vs.  Bo- 
naker,  decided  in  the  Arches  Courtrof  Canterbury,  in  1838,  and  .reported  in 
3  Haggard's  Ecclesiastical  Reports,  17-56.  It  was  a  suit  brought  under 
letters  of  request  from  the  Chancellor  of  Worcester,  by  William  Bennett, 
described-  as  a  parishioner  and  church-warden  of  Churchhorieybourne, 
Against  the  Rev.  William  Baldwin  Bonaker,  the  Vicar  of  that  parish,  for 
neglect  of  duty,  and  other  irregularities,  and  was  comrnenced  in  1828.  The 


substance  of  the  charge  was,  ufor  neglect  of,  and  irregularity  in  the  per. 
fprmance  of  divine  offices  as  Vicar  of  the- said  parish,  and  for  indecently 
and  irreverently  digging  .the  soil  orground  of  the  chiirch-yard,  and  the  said 
parish,  and  thereby  disturbing  the  bodies  of  thefdead  buried  therein,  and  for 
other  irregularities  and  excesses."  These  charges  were  based  upon.twen- 
ty-seven  specifications^  the  most  of  them  alleging  the  acts  to;  have  been  com- 
mitted in  1824 — four  years  before  the  institution  of  the  proceedings.  And 
•in.  reference  to  this  fzjct,  Sir  John  XichoU,  in  his  very  elaborate  judgment. 
resulting  in  a  dismissal  of  the  charges,  observes— (p.  26) — '"When  the 
charges  were  brought  in.  it  was  strongly  complained,  on  the  part  of  the  de- 
fendant, by  his  Counsel,  that  he  was  called  to  answer  these  charges  four 
years  after  most  of  them  were  alleged  tp  have  happened*  The  Court  felt, 
in  a  considerable  degree,  the  justice  of  that  complaint,  but  was  of  opinion 
[as  this  Court  has  determined  in  the  present  case]  that  it  formed  no  legal  bar 
to  the  prosecution.  All  the  Court  could  do,  was,^tr*£,  to  expect  clear  proof 
of  the  charges,  it  being  a  criminal  «uit ;  and,  secondly,  on  the  part  of  the 
defendant,  to  allow  of  general  explanation  ;  for  after  such  a  lapse  of  .time, 
it  was  hardly  possible  to  produce  direct  contradiction  or  distinct  explanation 
of  each  specific  charge  of  neglect  of  duty." 

Upon  this  weight  of  authority,  then,  and?  upon  the  reasons  .adduced  in  its 
support,  I  confidently  call  upon  the  Court  to  apply  these  principles  to  4he 
present  case  ;:  and  although  no  kgal  bar  exists  to  this  prosecution— or  upon 
which  the  evidence  brought  to  support  it  can  be  excluded — to  presume 
strongly  the  innocence  of  the  Respondent,  and,  as  was  done  in  the  case  just 
cited — first,  to  require  of  the  prosecution  clear  proof  of;  the  gharges;  and, 
secondly,  on  the  part  of  the  Respondent,  to  allow  a  general  explanation  ;  in- 
asmuch as  after  such  a  lapse  of  time,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  produce  direct 
contradiction -or  distinct  explanation  of  each  of  the  specifications  embraced 
in  this  presentment.  And  I  call  upon  the  Court  to  adopt,  as  the  first  propo- 
sition in  relation  to  Ihe  .rule  of  evidence  on  this  subject,  that  every  inference, 
as  against  these  charges,  by  reason  of  their  antiquity,  is  to  be  drawn  by  the 
Court — that  not  merely,  the  presumption  of  the  common  law  in  favor  of  the  . 
innocence  of  the  accused  party  should  be  applied,  but  that  in  a  case  of  stale 
charges  like  the  present,  that  presumption  should  be  more  strongly  ap- 
.  plied  ;  that  the  prosecution  should  be  required  to  produce  proof  of1  the  clear- 
est character  ;  and  that  the  Court  should  receive,  on  the  part  of  the  defend- 
ant,  the  most  general  explanation,  and  give  him  the  fullest  benefit  of  the  in- 
ference of  his. innocence  on  account  of  the  utter  impossibility,  after/so  great 
a  lapse  of  time,  of  explaining  facts  distinctly  and  clearly,  HO  .matter  how 
innocent  he  may  be  of  the  accusations  which  they  embrace. 

Another  proposition'  upon  the  rules  of  evidence,  to  which  I  desire  the  at- 
tention of  the  Court,  is  one  which,  it  strikes  me,  it  is  in  this  case,  pecu- 
liarly incumbent  on  them  to  admit,  and  carry  with  them  fn  their  examina- 
tion of  these  specifications ;  "and  as  bearing,  on  the  proof  brought  forward 
to  sustain  them. 

Here  are  some  four  or  five  different  allegations;  some  pf  them,  it  wil! 
be  admitted,  proved  very  lightly,  wijile  others,  it  "will  be  contended,  have 
been  very  strongly  established.  The  learned  Counsel  qq  the  other  side,  will 
probably  insist  that  the^case  which  is  thoroughly-' proved,  gives  strength  to 
that  not  so  fully  proved  ;  and  that  the  effect  pf  the  whole,  is  to  establish  a 
series  of  concurrent  acts,  all  demonstrative"  of  the  genefal  charge  alleged. 
•  The  Court  will  at  once  perceive  tie  fallacy  of  aach  an  argument.  Nothing,  ft 

20 


154 


seems  to  me,  can  be  clearer  than  that  that  which  is  partly  proved  can  borrow 
no  strength,  as  far  as  the  inference  of  its  proof  is  concerned,  from  an- 
other fact  partly  or  even  \vholly  proved  ;  and -that  each  circumstance  of 
the  case,  constituting  one  of  the  minor  facts,  tending  to  the  establishment 
of  the  general  charge,  must  be  proved  with  as  great  particularity  and  con- 
olusiveness  as  the  general:  charge  itself ;  and  the  argument  cannot  be  sound 
which  assumes,  as  it  must  necessarily  do,  that  because  the  charge  in  the 
case  of  Mrs.  Beare,  for  instance,  is  proved,  therefore  also  that  in' the  case,  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Bolles  is  proved.  The  true  and  correct  rule  on  the  subject 
is,  that  each  specific  charge  must  be  taken  up,  and  the  inquiry  be  made, 
independently  of  any  others,  is  it  proved  ?  When  each  is  proved  as  dis- 
tinctly and  as  clearly  as  if  it  were  the  only  issue,  then,  and  then  only,  the 
Court  are  at  liberty  to  put  them  together,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  is  the 
character  and  extent  of  the  general  charge. 

The  Court  will  permit  me  on  this  point  to  refer  to  an  elementary  work 
on  Evidence,  of  unquestioned  authority,  (Mr.  Starkie,)  in  which  it  is  laid 
down,  (vol.  1,  p.  571,  7th  American  edition,)  "that  the  circumstances 
from  which  the  conclusion  is  drawn,  should  be  fully  established.  If  the 
basis  be  unsound,  the  superstructure  cannot  be  secure.  The  party  upon 
whom  the  burden  of  proof  rests,  is  bound  to  prove  every  single  circum- 
stance which  is  essential  to  the  conclusion,  in  the  same  manner,  and  to  the 
same  extent,  as  if  the  whole  issue  had  rested  upon  the  proof  of  each  in- 
dividual and  essential  circumstance." 

Relying  upon  the  clearness  and  force  with  which  the  proposition  itself, 
and  the  reasons  in  its  support  are  thus  stated,  I  commend  it  with  confidence 
to  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  Court. 

Another  proposition  for  which  1  shall  contend,  and  the  discussion  of 
which  [approach  with  a  great  degree  of  diffidence,  as  it  involves  the  ex- 
amination of  matters  with  which  I  ain  not  professionally  very  familiar, — 
and  it  is  the  last  and  most  controlling  one  in  determining  the  weight  of  the 
testimony, — relates  to  the  character  of  the  evidence,  which  this  Court,  sitting 
as  a  spiritual  tribunal,  is  bound  to  require  at  the  hands  of  those  who  pre- 
sent these  charges  against  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  Respondent. — 
—On  this  point  I  shall  not  make'  the  vain  endeavor  of  enlightening  the 
members  of  this  Court  by  any  argument  of  my  own,  (for  certainly  it  would 
be  a  most  presumptuous  attempt  on  my  part,)  on  a  subject  with  which  they 
are  necessarily,  by  reason  of  their  sac  red  office,  so  thoroughly  conversant. — 
— I  shall,  therefore,  in  justice  to  myself,  and  in  deference  to  the  Court,  con- 
tent myself  with  .a  reference  to  such  evidence  of  the  rule  to  which  I  jvre 
about  to  refer,  as  has  fallen  within  my  reach. 

And  first,  I  refer  to  the  Jewish  law,  as- found  in  the  Old  Testament, 
xvhich  appears  to  be  the  original  foundation  of  all  the  rules  on  the  subject, 
Thus,  in  Deut'.  xvii.  6,  it  is  said  :  "At  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses,  oMbreer 
witnesses,  shall  he  that  is  worthy  of  death,"  be  put  to  death  ;  but  at  the? 
mouth  of  one  witness  he  shall  not  be  put  to  death."  So  in  Numbers,  x.x.xv. 
30  :  "  Whoso  killeth  any  person,  the  murderer  shatt  .be  put  K>  death  by  the 
mouth  of  witnesses  ;  but  one  witness  shall  not  testify  against  any  person 
to  cause  him  to  die."  And  again,  in  Deut.  xix.  15:  "One  witness  sshall 
not  rise  up  against  a  man  for  any  iniquity,  or  for  any  sin,  in  any  s:rc  that 
he  sinnetli  ;  at  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses,  or  at  the  mouth  of  three:  wit- 
nesses, shall  the  matter  be  established." 

These  are  all  the  references  which  I  shall  make  relative  to- the  rule,  a» 


155 

it  existed  under  the  old  dispensation  ;  and  submitting  them  without  com- 
ment, I  pass  to  the  more  important  consideration  of  the  rule,  as  it  is  derived 
from  divine  authority,  under  the  dispensation  of  our  Saviour — as  it  was 
recognised  and  regarded  by  the  primitive  Church — and  as  it  has  descended 
to  us  from  the  earliest  period  of  the  history  of  the  Church  to  the  present 
time. 

And  first,  I  invite  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  words  of  our  Saviour, 
as  they  will  be  found  in  Matt,  xviii.  16.  "  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee. 
then  take  with  theeone  or  two  more ;  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses every  word  may  be  established."  And  again,  in  John.  viii.  17,  "  It  is 
also  written  in  your  law,  that  the  testimony  of  two  men  is  true/'  These 
passages  show,  that  the  rule  under  the  old  dispensation  already  cited,  waa 
recognised  and  regarded,  as  I  reverentially  submit,  by  our  Saviour  as  a  sub- 
sisting and  binding  regulation.  But  as  a  more  direct  authority  on  the  sub- 
ject, emanating  from  one  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  early  formation  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  carrying  with  it  the  implied,  if  not  the  express  sanction  of 
his  Divine  Master,  I  refer  to  the  first  epistle  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  the  5th 
chapter,  19tb  verse,  wherein  it  is  written,  "Against  an  elder,  receive  not 
an  accusation  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses." 

n  this  passage,  the  slight  opportunity  which  I  have  been  able  to  em- 
brace since  the  closing  of  the  testimony,  has  placed  within  my  reach  a  num- 
ber of  expositions,  to  which  I  shall  respectfully  invite  the  consideration  of 
the  Court.  Before  proceeding  to  do  so,  however,  I  will  refer  to  the  fact  that 
in  the  Apostolical  canons,  containing  the  discipline  of  the  primitive  Church, 
and  by  some  ancients  as  well  as  moderns  believed  to  have  been  framed,  or 
at  least  to  have  been  the  very  rules  observed  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  i* 
to  be  found  this  very  striking  provision  :  "  Admit  not  an  heretic  to  give  in 
evidence  against  a  bishop,  nor  any  one  single  witness,  though  he  be  a  com- 
municant :  for  the  Scripture  sailh,  '  At  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses 
shall  he  that  is  worthy  of  death  be  put  to  death,  but  at  tha  mouth  of  one 
witness  he  shall  not  be  put  to  death.'  "  It  is  the  67th  canon  in  the  edition  to 
which  I  refer. 

Bishop  DOAJSE. — It  is  the  75th  of  this  collection. 

Mr.  GRAHAM. — I  now  return  to  the  passage  I  have  cited  from  Paul's 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  I  would  here  remark  that  the  words  of  the  original 
have  not,  in  the  received  translation,  been  correctly,  or  at  least  literally  ren- 
dered. The  words  which  are  translated  •'  unless  before"  are  in  the  original 
;  JMJ  eft,  the  literal  translation  of  which  is,  "  without  unless  upon,"  [or 
"  by,"]  being  an  evident  pleonasm,  which  the  translator  has  endeavored  to  ob- 
viate in  the  accepted  version,  by  the  substhution  of  words  conveying,  as  b« 
supposed,  the  meaning,  though  not  the  literal  sense  of  the  original.  I  have 
also  the  authority  of  Dr.  Macbnigkt,  in  his  translation,  for  this  criticism, 
ans'ation  is,  "  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation  unless  by 
two  witnesses,"  or  as  he  renders  it  more  literally,  "  Against  an  elder,  rohe- 
tkerhc  be  a  bishop,  a  president,  or  a  deacon,  receive  not  an  accusation,  unless 
H  is  offered  to  be  proved  by  two  or  three  credible  witnesses.*'  And  in  his 
note  to  his  literal  translation,  "  unless  by  two  or  three  witnesses,"  he  observes : 
"  This,  I  think,  is  the  proper  translation  of  the  clause.  For  I  see  no  reason 
why  an  accusation  against  an  elder  should  not  be  received,  unless  in  At 
presence  of  witnesses.  But  I  see  a  good  reason  for  not  receiving  such  an 
accusation,  unless  it  is  offered  to  be  proved  by  a  sufficient  number  of  credi- 
ble witnesses.  Tbis  method  of  proceeding  puts  a  stop  to  groundless  accu- 


156 

sations  of  the  ministers  of  religion."  (Macknight  on  the  Epistles,  vol.  4,  pp. 
248,  249,  1st  Am.  Ed.)  So  also  in  Rosenmiiller's  commentary  on  the  same 
passage,  it  is  said :  "  By  the  term  '  tfpso'/SuTSpou'  or  '  elder,'  as  here  used, 
some  understand  one  who  is  of  advanced  age;  others  understand  elder  by 
rank,  which  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  preceding  words.  By  the  law 
of  Moses,  no  one  could  be  condemned  of  a  crime  unless  the  accusation  was 
proved  .by  two  witnesses.  But  a  common  man  (vir  plebeius)  could  be  taken, 
or  an  inquisition  against  him  could  be  commenced  at  the  word  of  one  wit- 
ness ;  but  not  so  against  a  Senator,  to  whom  a  presbyter  (or  elder)  was  re- 
garded as  equal.  The  reason  is  simple.  Those  who  correct  the  crimes  of 
others  are  always  accustomed  to  suffer  the  hatred  of  many,  and,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  whole  people  in  favor  of  the  elder  when  he  is  elected,  easily 
outweighs  one  witness."  (Rosenmulleri  Schol.  in  Nov.  Test.  vol.  5,  p.  56, 
Nuremberg  Ed.  of  1808.) 

To  the  same  effect,  also,  it  is  said  in  Pole's  Synopsis  of  the  Critics  and 
other  interpreters  of  the  Scriptures,  "  Against  an  elder  (presbyterum)  either 
1,  by  age,  or  rather  2,  by  rank  or  dignity,  as  the  context  teaches,  receive 
not  an  accusation  (that  is,  an  ecclesiastical  censure)  unless,  &c.  There  is 
here  a  pleonasm  or  double  negation,  sxrog  ««  M  sift,  as  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  5,  and 
xv.  2.  He  appears  here  to  instruct  the  president,  (prassidem,)  who  is  called 
the  bishop,  £#irfxoiro£,  for  it  was  the  duty  of  such  to  direct  or  supervise  the 
actions  of  the  elder.  Timothy  was  then  a  bishop  in  the  Ephesian  presby. 
tery.  Query  ?  What  need  was  there  of  this  new  precept  concerning  elders, 
when  in  every  accusation  it  had  a  place?  Deut.  xvii.  6.  Hence  some  have 
supposed  that  it  ought  to  be  expunged  as  superfluous.  But  the  accusation  is 
one  thing,  the  judgment  upon  the  accused,  of  the  judge  acquitting  or  con- 
demning him,  another.  By  the  law  of  Moses,  no  one  could  be  condemned 
of  a  crime  unless  upon  an  accusation  proved  by  two  witnesses.  But  by  the 
testimony  of  one  witness,  who  was  not  infamous,  a  common  man  (vir  ple- 
beius) could  be  taken,  or  an  inquisition  could  be  commenced  against  him  ; 
but  not  so  against  a  Senator,  to  whom  an  elder  was  regarded  as  equal.  In 
the  trials  (judiciis)  of  the  Jews  there  were  three  parts  or  stages:  1.  The 
admission  of  the  cause  or  suit,  when  the  Judge  receives  the  accusation.  2. 
The  proof  of  the  cause,  by  the  oath  of  the  accuser.  (Heb.  vi.  16.)  3. 
The  examination  of  the  cause,  by  the  arguments  adduced  on  both  sides. 
Observe,  it  is  not  said  condemn  not,  but  receive  not  an  accusation  ;  repel  those 
who  bring  the  charge.  And  why  not  ?  Ans.  1.  On  account  of  the  weight 
of  the  party,  and  the  dignity  of  his  office,  he  is  not  therefore  to  be  spoken 
against  without  strong  reason,  for  his  infamy  is  connected  with  the  public 
scandal  of  the  whale  Church ;  wherefore,  it  is  for  the  interest  of  the  whole 
Church  that  his  character  be  not  easily  injured.  2.  Because  the  opinion  in 
his  favor,  of  the  whole  people,  when  he  is  elected,  easily  outweighs  one 
witness. 

Mr.  KETCHUM.  The  whole  people  ? 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Not,  I  suppose,  in  the  democratic  sense,  in  which  that  term 
would  now  be  understood. 

Bishop  HOPKINS.'  In  the  primitive  church  it  was  always  done  in  the  most 
democratic  manner. 

Mr.  GRAHAM  proceeded  with  his  quotation. 

"  3.  Because  depraved  persons  are  always  ready  to  exaggerate  against 
their  prelates  and  pastors,  their  faults.  For  those  who  correct  the  crimea 
of  others  are  wont  to  incur  the  hatred  of  many,  which  is  the  malignity  of 


157 

th->   Immaa   mind."      (Pile's   Synopsis;  vol.  4,  p.  1080,  Lend.   edit,  of 
1676.) 

A-  further  showing  {he  sense  'in  which  this  passage  'has  ^>pen  under- 
stood, I  beg  leave  also  to  refer  to  the  observations  of  a  learned  com- 
mentator, of  another. branch  of;  the  Christian  church.  I' allude  to  Henry:« 
-!tion  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  .in  which,  In  commenting  on 
this  passage,  are  to  be  found  tbe  following  observations : — ".Concerning 
the  accusation  of  ministers,  (v.  19.)  '  Against  an  elder  receive  not  .an 
accusation  bift  before  two  or  three  witnesses*'  Here  is. the- scripture  method 
of  proceeding  against  an  elder  when  accused  of  any  crime.  Observe. 
1st.  There  must  be  an  accusation;  it  must  not  be>  a  flying,  uncertain 
report;  but  an  accusation,  containing  a  certain  charge,  must  be  drawn 
up.  Further,  He  is  not  to  be  proceeded  aga'inst  by  way  of  inquiry;  this 
is  according  to  the  modern  practice  of  the  Inquisition,  which  draws  up  arti- 
cles for  men  to  purge  themselves  of  such  crimes,  or  else  to  accuse  them- 
selves ;  but,  according  to  the  advice  of  St.  Paul,  there  must  be  an  accusa- 
tion brought  against  an  elder.  2d.  This  accusation .  is  not  to  be  received 
unless  supported  by  two  or  three  credible  "witnesses.  And  the  accusation 
must  be  received  before  them  ;  that  is,  the  accused  must  have  the  accusers 
face  to  face,  because  the  reputation  of  a  minister,  is,  in  a  particular  manner, 
a  tender  thing;  and  therefore,  before  anything  be  done  in  the  least  to 
blemish  that  reputation,  great  care  must,  be'  taken  that  the  thing  alleged 
against  him  be  well  proved,  that  he  be  not  reproached  upon  an  uncertain 
surmise."  (Henry's  Bible,' vol.  6,  on  1st  Tim.  y.  19.) 

In  addition  to  these  authorities,  it  will  be  found,  that  'in  the  Constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  this  country,  this  rule  has  been  expressly  adopted. 
It  is  provided  in  the  Chapters  respecting  the  forms  of  process  in  the  judica- 
tories  of  that  Church,  that  no  complaint,  or  information,  on  the  subject  of 
personal  and  private  injuries,  shall  be  admitted,  unless  those  means  of  recon- 
ciliation, and  of  privately  reclaiming  the  offender,  have  been  used,  which 
are  required  by  Christ..  (Maith.  xviii.  15,  16.)  And  that  in  all  cases,  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  in  receiving  accusations,  in  conducting  processes, 
or  inflicting  censures,  .ought;  to  avoid,  as  far  as  possible,  the  divulging  of 
offences  to  the  scandal  of  the1  Church,  because  the  unnecessary  spreading 
of  scandal  hardens  and  enrages  the  guilty,  grieves  the  godly,  and  dishonors 
religion.  And  again,  that  the  judicatory,  in  many  cases,  may  find  it  more 
for  edification  to  send  some  members  to  converse  in  a  private  manner  with 
the  accused  person,  and  if  he  confess  guilt,  to  endeavor  to  bring  him  to 
repentance, "than  fo  proceed  immediately  to  citation.  And,  especially,  in 
respect  to  process  against  a  Bishop  or  minister,  they  have  provided,  that  a? 
it  is  the  duty  of  all  Christians  to  be  very  cautious  in  taking  up  an  ill  report 
of  any  man,  it  is  especially  so  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  If,  therefore, 
any  man  know  a  minister  guilty  of  a  private  censurable  fault,  he  should 
warn  him  in  private  ;  .but  if  he  persist  in  it,  or  it  become  public,  he  should 
apply- to  some  other  Bishop  of  the  presbytery  for  his  advice  in  the  matter. 
And  following  up  the  spirit  of  these  injunctiohs,  based  as  they  are  upon  the 
precepts  and  example  of  our  Saviour  himself,  and  'therefore  the  most  fitting 
guide  of  the  discipline  of  his  Church,  they  have  solemnly  declared,  in  the 
7th  article  of  the  first  of  the  chapters  to  which  I  have  referred,  that  "  no 
crime  shall  be  considered  as  established  by  a  single  witness."  (Const. 
Presh.  Church,  pp.  4-2*.  42a.  433-.  Philad.  Ed:  of  1806.) 

This  rule,  then,  deriving  its  authority,  as  it  unquestionably  does,  from . 


J58 

the.  old  dispensation, — .from  the  fact  that  it  was  referred  to  by  cur  Saviour 
in  at  least  two  instances,  as  a  subsisting  regulation — from  its  enforcement 
by  one  of'his  earliest  and  chosen  followers  and  Apostles — from  its  recog- 
nition in  (he  canons  of  the  Primitive  Church,  and  from  the  additional  fact 
that  it  has  been  traced  down  through  the  .regulations  of  all  the  Christian 
denominations,  and  approved  by  the  most  learned  commentators  of  every 
st;ct  in  the  Christian  Church,  would  of  itself,  I  contend,  in  this  Court,  ad- 
ministering judgment  according  to  the  obligations  imposed  upon  it  by  the 
discipline  of  that  Church,  be  of  unanswerable  force  and  authority.  It  will 
be  found,  however,  that  it  has  been  regarded  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts, 
in  England,  as  a  very  practical  rule,  and  as  not  necessarily  going  back  \fi 
the  source  to  which  I  have  referred,  but  as  in  itself  a  wise  and  proper 
regulation.  And  accordingly,  the  Court  will  find,  in  the  Ecclesiastical 
Law,  it  is  laid  down,  as  a  distinct  rule  of  evidence.-  I  cite,  on  this  head, 
from  Bum's  Ecclesiastical  Law,  (a  work  regarded  by  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  in  England  as  of  the  highest  authority,)  under  the  title  Evidence,  thf 
following  passage:  "A  single  witness  is  not  sufficient  in  the  civil  lav,  : 
and  the  spiritual  court  will  not  allow  of  one  witness  only,  but  there  must 
be  two  at  the  least ;  and  if  the  point  is  merely  spiritual,  the  tempora1 
courts  will  not  grant  a  prohibition."  And  in  a  note  to  this  passage,  it  is 
said:  "The  canonists  have  borrowed  this,  as  they  have  most  of  their 
rules  of  evidence,  from  the  civil  law,  which  does  not  permit  a  single  wit- 
ness to  be  heard.  Unius  testis  responsio  non  audialur,  eliamsi  pr&clarcF 
curia  honore  prcefulgeat.  Cod.  4,  20,  9.  Dig.  22,  5,  12.  A  cause  therefore 
which  rested  on  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness,  uncorroborated  by  any  other 
evidence,  was  to  be  dismissed  without  tendering  the  supplctory  oath.  Noodt 
ad  Dig.  22,  5."  To  the  same  effect,  also,  I  refer  to  Gibson's  Codex,  foil. 

These  authorities,  of  which  I  can  only  say  that  regarding  them,  as 
I  do,  of  the  very  highest  ecclesiastical  authority,  binding  upon  the  con- 
science of  an  ecclesiastical  court,  and  designed  by  our  Saviour,  and 
those  who  have  carried  out  his  precepts,  to  be  the  guide  and  rule  of 
conduct  of  spiritual  judicatories,  I  submit  to  the  Court,  as  entirely  conclu- 
sive on  this  subject.  But  I  do  not  stop  here.  There  are  other  reason* 
showing  the  propriety  of  the  rule ;  for  it  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  b< 
regarded — though  I  think  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  the  Court  so  to  regard 
it — as  a  mere  abstract  and  imperative  rule,  aside  from  the  reasons  on  wlm-h 
it  rests.  Even  in  the  civil  courts  there  are  two  instances  perfectly  fami- 
liar to  every  lawyer,  and  analogous  in  principle  to  the  case  before  the 
Court,  in  which  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses  is- necessary ;  and  without 
which  the  party  cannot  be  convicted,  no  matter  how  respectable,  honora- 
ble, or  above  reproach,  the  character  of  the  single  witness  may  be.  First. 
I  refer  to  the  law  of  evidence,  in  the  case  of  treason.  It  is  a  common  law 
principle,  enforced  in  England  by  statutory  regulation,  and  in  this  country 
by  constitutional  provision,  that  no  man  shall  be  convicted  of  that  crim» 
unless  on  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses.  What  is  the  reason  of  the  rule  ? 
As  given  in  all  the  elementary  writers  on  the  subject,  and  by  most  learned 
judges  who  have  enforced  its  application,  it  is  this  :  that  the  fidelity  of  a 
man  to  his  allegiance  shall  be  presumed,  and  he  shall  have  the  benefit  as 
against  every  single  witness,  of  his  own  assertion  and  declaration  in  favor 
of  his  allegiance.  Now  let  me  apply  the  rule  and  its  reason  to  this  case. 
What  is  the  charge  against  the  Respondent  ?  It  is  that  in  violation  of  hi.* 
consecration  vow — in  breach  of  his  high  trust — in  treason  therefore  to  that 


159 

religion,  which  he  was  bound  to  preach  and  practise,  and  'to  his  solemn 
oath,  he  has  committed  the  acts  alleged  against  him.  These  are  the  alle- 
gations, and  if  true,  they  are, 'the  re  fore,  within  every  analogy,  so  many 
acts  of  treason  to  his  vow  and  obligation.  Now  if  in  a  court  of  law,  the 
veriest  vagrant  cannot  be  convicted  of  treason  t3  the  state,  en  the  cath  of 
'  the  most  respectable  citizen,  can  it  be  possible  that  this  Court  of  a  Chris- 
.  tian  Church  -will  apply  a  more  lax  rule  in  determining  upon  the  guilt  c-f  & 
Bishop,  upon  a  charge  of  treason  to  the  Church  and  to  his  God,  than  that 
which,  in  the  civil  courts,  protects  the  life  and  liberty  of  a  party  under 
impeachment  for  the  crime  of  treason  against  his  government?  .The 
analogy  appears  to  me  to  be  perfect,  and  so  satisfied  am  I  of  its  applica- 
bility in  the  present  case,  that  I  would  have  no  hesitation  in  resting  this 
defence,  even  were  there  no  other 'analogy,  on  this  single  principle  which 
the  common  law,  with  all  its  rigor  and.  severity,  has  yet  sanctioned  and- 
adopted. 

But  there  is,  if  possible,  a  still  stronger  analogy.  I  refer  to  the  case  of 
perjury.  It  is  known  to  every  tyro-  in  the  law,  that  a  party  cannot  be 
indicted,  or  accused,  or  convicted  of  perjury,  unless -on  .the  evidence  of  two 
witnesses ; '  and  no  matter  how  degraded  the  accused-  party  may  be— no 
matter  how  obviously  false  the  oath  which  he  has  taken — yet  if  the  fact 
of  its  untruth  be  supported  by  only  one  witness,  the  party  cannot  even  be 
put  upon  his  defence.  The  moral  ascertainment  of  the  fact  of  his  guilt 
may  be  perfectly  clear  and  certain ;  but  yet  the  law  gives  the  most  de- 
graded outcast  the  benefit  of  his  own  oath  as  against  that  of  any  one  wit- 
ness against  him,  and  he  cannot  be  convicted,  unless  upon  the  preponder- 
ating evidence  of  another  witness  establishing  the  same  fact.  •  Is  there,  let 
me  ask,  no  analogy  between  that  case  and  the  present?-  Is  not  perjury 
in  its  worst  sense  imputed  to  the  respondent  ?  What  is  the.  language  of 
these  specifications?  W'hy,  that  in  violation  of  his  consecration .  vow, 
the  most  solemn  oath  that  can  be  taken  by  man — in  disregard  of  the  awful 
responsibility  which  it  imposes — in  contempt  of  his  holy  office,  perjuring 
himsolf  before  his  God,  he  has  coinrnitfed  the  offences  charged  upon  him! 
in  the  name  of  all  that  is  reasonable  and  just — in  the  name  not  of  hu- 
manity, but  of  right  and  justice,  I  ask  whether  the  accused  in  such  a  case 
ought  riot  to  be  allowed  the  benefit  of  his  own  oath,  against  which  the  con- 
ouiTont  testimony  of  two  witnesses  ought  to  be  required  ?  Surely,  even 
if  there  be  no  soundness'  in  the  reasons  given  by  the  learned  commentators 
whom  I  have  cited  for  the  rule,  as  they  lay  it  down,  based  upon  the  respect 
for  the  office,  and  the  presumption  that  malicious  and  evil-disposed  persons 
may  fabricate  charges  against  a  party  holding  'the  highest  office  in  the 
Church,  it  can  hardly  be  possible,  where  .the  crime  of  perjury  is  involved 
in  the  question  of  his  guilt,  that  that  wise  and  just  principle  of  the  law 
which  i.s  extended  for  the  protection  of  the  most  degraded  outcast,  on  a 
charge  of  perjury,  will  be  refused  to  a.  Bishop  of  the  Church, 'when  charged 
with  the  enhanced  and  aggravated  guilt  of  a  violation  of  his  consecration 
vow.  It  seems  to  me,  and  I  respectfully,  sutumit  it  as  unanswerable,  that 
.in  (he  first  place,  the  authority  of  the  Christian  Church  demands  of -you 
.to  give  weight  to,  and  to  be  bound  by  the  rulb  to  which  I  have  referred ; 
and  that,  in  the  second  place,  the-  reason  of  the  common  law,-  with  all  its 
stringency  and  severity  against  crime  presents,  in  the  cases  to  which  I 
have  referred,  a  complete  and  conclusive  analogy.  And  I  therefore,  in 
conclusion  of  this  branch  of  my  argument,  submit  with'.confidenco  to  the 


.  160 


'  •  Court,  that  qothing  can?  bo  ckatfeiy  both  upon  Authority  and  .upon  jxrinci- 
|)!o,  than  that  the  testimony  of  at-le#st  two  witnesses  should  concur 'to  es- 
tablish the.fa^t  of  guilt  kga^rist  the  Respondent ;  and  that  it  should  'riot  con- 
cur, as  the  learned  counsel  will  say  it  may,  by  the  establishment, of  differ- 


*.»O      if     iV     VV^pAOlALUL^Vl        lil\-?    Wl*l  Y)    lk7OU^.     L/VIWA,^      L11O     V/V^UAb*         •     A  L       If  \JIA1VJ.'    W      l^^J.  H.  ^  11  J 

i:  absurd  tojsay  that,  you  have  two  witnesses  to. the  guilt  of  "the  party,,  when" 

.  •  •;   r'in  reality  feach  of  the  distinct:  specifications  which  must  be  distinctly  and 

;       . .  'iadependendy  established,  is  proved .  by .  the  oath  of  but  a  single  .witness. 

It  would  be  3 oing  violence" both  .to  reason  and  language  to  say  that-such-  a 

.    -fallacy  i§  'within', either,  the  'letter  or  spirit  of  the  rule,  that 'no  charge  shall 

;  .be  made. against  a  party,  unless!  proved  'by  the  testimony-  of. at'  least  two 

roncurriug  'witnesses.    : 

*t;  '|R^gretting  that  I  haye  so  loijg' trespassed  upon  the  attention  of  the  Court, 

•  •      fa 'dwelling,  upon' these   points,  which  I  regard  as  the  general  propositions 

;.rtjpning  through  the  whole  of.  this  case,  and  which  must  go.vern  the  Court 

1    :'"'•'  "fn 'their  deliberations,  I  shall  now  proceed,  with  as  much  brevity  as  possible. 

under- the  third  artd  only  remaining  point  of  the  analysis  originaljy  presented 

in  the  outset  of  my  remarks,  to  :  call  your  attention  to  the  proofs  vy  which 

.     th'esc  charges  apd  speciTicatioris  are' sought  to  be  sustained.,   'In  doing  so,  I 

.  .     '     shall  consider  together- the  first 'two  specifications,  because  they  have  refer- 

V  ehce  to  the  same. occurrehce-^the. case  of  Mrs.  Butler. ' 
•  f        '.  '..    The  first  specification  charges,-  that  "  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Ooderdonk,  eVi 

•  or.ibout -tire  first  day_of  June,  1837.  being  then  Bishop  of  the  said  Church 
JU'  the  Diocese  of  New'  York,  was  engaged  in  a  tour  of  official  duty,  and 

*-.':      .was  proceeding  to  the  town  of  Syracuse,  in  Onond-aga  county,  in  said  Dio- 

-  cese  of  'New  York,  for  "the.  'pilrpase,  among  other  martters,  of  ordaining  the 
Rev.  Clemetrt  M'.  Butler  to  the  Priesthood  ;  that  on  his  way  to  ancl  near  the 

• .;  t        tbwri-'of  Syracuse,  the  said  Clement  M.  Butler,  together  with  h'is  wife,  mat 
him  in  a  carriage,  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  him,  the  said  Benjam.in  T. 
i  Onderdpnk,  to  tlie  said  town  ;  that .thq  said  Behja.mii}  T.  Onderdpnlv  entered 

.    .     ••      the  said  carriage  ahd -took  his  s6at  on  the  back  seat  thereof  by  the  side  of 
the  said  lady  ;  that  they  two  alone  occupied  that  seat;  the  said  Clement  M. 
Butler  aVid   a  'person  driving,  occupying  the'  front  seat,  with  their  backs- 
1      .  •    '    tuhied  towards  the  back  seat,j  ihat  thereupon,  afterwards,  the  said  Benja- 
•   '  rnih  T.'Opderdonk  irnpur'ely  and  nnchastely  put  his  arm  around  the  bbdy  of. 
said  lady,  and  in  an  impure  and  unbecoming  manner  pressed  the  .said  lady  • 
.  '•  towards  him;  that  the  said  lady  endeavored  to  repress  the  said  familiarities, 
and  to  bring  the  said  Benjamin.  T.  Ond.erdonk  to  a  just  sense  of  his  duty  m 
•    •'••••',  that  behalf;  that  die  night  carae  on  before  the  said  parties  reached  the  e-nd 
.    y      {  of  their'jcrurney,  and  thaf  after  It  became  dark,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  On- 
.  '.derdonk  renewed  .his-said'improper  conduct,  and.  impurely  and  unchastely 
.  .    •  did  pass  his  -hand  xlown  and  along  the  person  and  the'legs  of  the  said  lady. 
.-  '  ••       - !  afiid  did  6ther\vise  .behave'  towards'  her.  in  so,  rude  and  indece'nt  a  manner 
.     ;*  ';  that  the  said  wife  of  jhe  said-  Clement  M.  Butler  was  obliged  -to  claim  .tin? 
.     ,' '  protection  of  .her  husband;  and'  thereupon  left  her -seat  in  the  said,  carrjage. 
,'  ,   :'  .  .;  and  rode  upon  the  front  seat  thereof  for-  the  rest  of  the  journby,  in  .doing,' 

;  which  she  was.  obliged  to  sit  upon  her  husband's  lap  ;  and  that  owing  to 

.     '•    '.'  .and.'in'boftsequence  of  the  said;  conduct  'of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 

.'    .  :  the  saicji  lady  bedame  serioosly  :sick.  and  her  health  was  so  much  affected 

'•  •  '  as! permanently  to. injure  her  jponstitiition.     All  which  said  actings  on  the 


part  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  the  said  Bishops  presenting  do 
charge  as  being  in  violation  of  his  duty  as  'a  Bishop,  and  contrary  to  his 
consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  great  scandal  of  the  Church  of 
Christ." 

The  second  specification  charges,  ':  that  the  said  'Benjamin  T.  Onder- 
donk, Bishop,  aforesaid,  at  the  said  time  and  place  mentioned  in  the  last 
specification,  was  under  the  influence  of  and  improperly  excited  by  vinous 
or  spirituous  liquors,  drunk  by  him,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
contrary  to  his  duty  as  Bishop  and  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf 
made,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  said  Church." 

Before  considering  the  teslimonyin  support  of  these  two  specifications — 
which  I  shall  do  with  very  great  brevity,,  the-  more  especia-lly  as  I  had  not 
the  advantage  of  being  present  in  Court  and  hearing  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses  in  their  support — I  must  be  permitted  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Court  to  a  fact  applicable  to  all  the  specifications  except  one,  and  I  cer- 
tainly do  it  without  intending  to  impute  to  the  Right  Rev.  Presenters  any 
design  or  desire  to  transcend  their  duty.;  at  the  same  time  I  cannot  forbear 
adverting  to  the  fact  that  the  Right  Rev.  Respondent  has  been  placed  upon 
trial,  upon  a  Presentment  founded  on  charges,  only  one  of  which  was  at- 
tempted to  be  sustained  by  the  oath  of  any  party  directly  cognizant  of  an 
alleged  offence  at  the  time  the  Presentment  was  made. 

Bishop  GADSDEN. — I  wish  the  Counsel  to  repeat  the  last  observation. 

Mr.  GRAHAM. — This  Presentment,  I  mean  to  say,  was  made  upon  mere 
rumor,  mere  hearsay  evidence,  in  regard  to  every  charge  embraced  in  it. 
except  one.  It  is  so  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Butler  ;  in  the  case  referred  to  but 
not  proved  by  Mr.  Bolles  ;  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare  ;  and  in  the  case  of  Miss 
Helen  Rudderow.  In  the  case  of  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  alone,  was  the  affi- 
davit of  the  party  alleged  to  have  been  insulted,  before  the  Presenters.  I 
advert  to  this  matter  with  becoming  delicacy,  I  trust,  but  at  the  same  time 
I  cannot  help  adverting  to  it  as  revolting  to  my  sense,  at  least,  of  what  is  due 
to  the  character  and  rights  of  every  citizen,  and. as  a  circumstance'which,  if 
it  had  occurred  in  a  civil  tribunal,  would- have  been  frowned  upon  most  in- 
dignantly  by  the  Court.  Here  then  is  a  party  charged  with  high  crimes 
and  misdemeanors — made  the  gazing-stock  of  the  whole  public — upon  affi- 
davits and  statements  not  one  of  which  could  be  received  in  a  court  of  law, 
or  even  in  this  Court,  where  the  rules  of  evidence  are  not  so  stringent,  in 
support  of  the  charge ;  and  yet  here  he  is  placed  upon  his  trial  upon 
eight  or  nine  charges  involving,  as  is  supposed,  the  most  heinous  guilt, 
when  but  one  of  them  was  proved  by  any  thing  like  legal  testimony,  before 
the  presenting  body. 

What  would  be  thought  of  a  grand  jury  (to  whose  duties-  those  of  the 
Presenters  in  this  case  are  clearly  analogous)  who  should  indict  a  man  for 
any  crime,  no  matter  what,  upon  hearsay  merely,  without  the  testimony  of 
a  single  witness  cognizant  of  the  facts?  These  affidavits  may  have  been, 
untrue  when  made,  and  I  Will  show  this  Court  that  the  statements  referred 
to  in  many  of  them  were  so ;  and  yet,  by  the  course  adopted,  the  Re- 
spondent has  been  subjected  to  the  harassing  process  of  this  trial — 
scarcely  on  the  pretence  of  proof  in  the  hands  of  the  Presenters,  w.hen  the 
charges  were  preferred.  I  advert  to  this  as  a  fact  which  ought  to  in- 
duce  the  Court  to  scrutinize  very  closely  the  testimony  upon  which  it  is 
now  sought  to  establish  these  charges.  And,  as  I  have  already  said,  I 
do  so  without  the  slightest  intention  of  doing — what  I  regret  to  say  one  of 

21 


the  Rt.  Rev.  Presenters  permitted  himself  to  do,  with  respect  to  the  Coun- 
sel for  the  Respondent — arraigning  the  motives  of  those  who  have  made 
this  Presentment. 

But  to  return  to  the  specifications  themselves.  How  is  this  charge  on 
the  part  of  Mrs.  Butler  sustained?  Carrying  out  the  general  principles 
and  rules  already  laid  down,  and  which  I  advanced  as  preliminary  to  my 
examination  of  the  evidence,  in  order  to  obviate  the  necessity  of  repeating 
them — it  is,  at  the  most,  sustained  only  by  a  single  witness.  That  will  not, 
I  suppose,  be  controverted.  But  let  us  see  how  far  it  is  sustained  even  by 
that  witness.  If  I  understand  the  English  language.,  it  is  not  only  not  sup- 
ported, but  expressly  contradicted,  and  therefore  in  no  sense  is  it  sustained 
even  by  this  single  witness.:  What  is  the.  story  which  she  tells  ?  In  the 
first  place,  furnishing  a  key  in  the  outset  of  her  testimony  for- some  charity 
towards  the  accused,  she  states  that  from  her -infancy  up  to  girlhood  and 
womanhood,  she  had  been  intimately  acquainted  with  the  accused,  and  that 
he  was  in  the  habit  of  extending  to  her  marks  of  affection  and  paternal 
caresses,  which,  whatever  the  Courfmay.  think  with  regard  to  their  discre- 
tion, certainly  in  themselves  involved  nothing  criminal,  and  cannot  be  so 
construed  as  to  justify  the  charge  of  immorality  and  impurity. 

She  next  states  that  she  perceived,  shortly  after  the  commencement  of 
the  ride  in  question,  that  the  Bishop  had  been  drinking,  and  then  goes  on  to 
say  :  "  When  I  first  noticed  that  his  breath  was  tainted  by  something  he 
had  been  drinking,  I  was  neither  surprised  nor  pained  by  it;  because  I  was 
aware  that  he  habitually  used  wine  and  ardent  spirits,  and  was  not  aware 
to  what  extent.  After  he  had  finished  reading  his  letters,  I  found,  with 
some  alarm,  that  he  became  unusually  talkative,  and  that  he  spoke  so'  in- 
distinctly that  I  could  not  always  understand  him.  He. first  put  his  arm 
around  my  waist,  and  drew  me  towards  him  ;  this,  he  repeated  once,  per- 
haps twice.  He  had  often  done  this  when  I  was  unmarried;  and  I  had 
permitted  jt,  although  always  disagreeable  to  me,  because  I  'believed  him 
incapable  of  wrong.  At  this  time,,  however,  I. removed  his  hand  each  time, 
because  I  saw  he  was  not  himself.  I  Was .  excessively  fearful  lest  our 
driver  should  discover  it, -as  he  was'a  man  .who  had  but  recently  become 
interested  in  Church  affairs,  and  for  whose  spiritual  interest  my  husband 
was  deeply  solicitous  ;  and  also  because,  during  our  ride  to  Ithaca,  he  had 
stronsly  spoken  of  the  inconsistencies  of  professing  Christians,  as  having  been 
a  stumbling-block  'in  his  way  to  Heaven.  The  Bishop 'persisted  in  putting 
his  arm  about  me,  and  raised  his  hand  so  as  to  press  my  bosom.  I  then 
rose,  and  withdrew  his  arm  from  behind  me,  and  laid*  the  hand  upon  his 
knee,  and  said  to-  him  in  a  raised  tone  of  voice — hoping  to  bring  him  to 
himself,  and  wishing  <o  attract  Mr.  Butler's  attention — that  a  Bishop's 
hands  were  sacred  in  my  eyes,  and  that  his  were,  particularly  so,  because 
they  had  been  laid  upon  the  heads  of  many  I  loved,  in  confirmation,  and 
were  about  to  be  laid  on  my  husband's  head  in  ordination.  He  made  but 
little  answer,  but  for  some  little  time  let  me  alone.  During  this  time,  I 
thought  of  the  awful  disgrace  that  would  come  upon  him  and  his  family, 
and  upon  the  Church,  if  his  state  and  conduct  that  night  was  known.  I 
had  a  lingering  hope  that  he  had  been  betrayed  into  taking  more  than  was 
habitual  to  him,  and  that  in  this  way  he  had  been  betrayed  into  -intoxica- 
tion ;  and  I  hoped  that  his  insult  to  me  was  unintentional.  I  therefore  de- 
cided upon  keeping  silence  upon  the  subject,  and  upon  preventing,  so  far  as 
in  me  lay,  its  ever  becoming  known.  While  sitting  in  thought,  I  found  he 


again  moving.'  I  • waited  tq'  see  whether' he  might  not  be  merely 
steady  ing' himself  in  his  seat,  as  the  roads^were  rough,  when  he  suddenly 
arid  violently  again  .brought, his  hand  upon  my  bosom,  pressed  and  clasped 
it..  In  'some  horror,  Tstruck  the.  hand  with  all  my  force,  and  he  withdrew 
it,  But'  immediately  grasped*-  my  leg  in  th'e  most  indelicate'  manner.  'I 
sprang  forward  t'o.my  husband,  and  told  hjrifi  I  could  no  longer  sit  with  the  ^ 
Bishop-*— I  must  sit  with  him.  I  was  greatly  distressed,  and  he/Mr.  Butler, 
•held  me/ on. 'his  kn.ee  for  some  time-;  arid  after  that',  I1  rode  sometimes  .on -Jus 
knee,  and  sometimes  on  a  carpet- bag  at  his  feet.  We  slept  twice  during 
the  night,  resting  at  Homer  an  hour  or  two,  so-  nearly,  as  I  can  recollect. 
During,  aft  our.  time  of  stay  .at  those 'places,  mywhole  efforts  were  needed 
by  my  husb'and,'tq  soothe  him — the  being  violently  incensed,  and  .declaring 
'that  Bishop  Onderdonk  should  not  ordain  him.  We  stopped  that  morning  . 
about  day-break,  at  a  place  about  ten  miles  distant  From  Syracuse,  perhaps 
fifteen.  Here  we  again  rested,  and  breakfasted.  During  the  .ride  -from 
% Homer- to.' this  latter  place,  the  Bishop  s.lept  heavily.  When  we  left  the 
'last; stopping-place,  I  .persuaded  Mr.  Butler  to  sh  'back  with  the  Bishop,  in 
order  to  avoid  the  remark  which  would  be  occasioned  by  his  sitling  alone. 
No  .conversation  passed  between  the -Bishop  and  myself  after  I  changed  my 
seat ;  nor  have  I  since  seen  him,  except  at  Convention,  until  now." 

These,  'then,  ace  the,  'circumstances  as  detailed  by  Mrs.  Butler.  .  Now, 
.suppose  that  evfery  word  were  true,  what  is  the  gravamen  of  the  charge 
agains,t  the- Bish6p  ?  •  I  apprehend  .it  is.  the  intoxication.  It  is,  indeed, 
.  made  the  subject  of  a  specific. charge.  '  I  respectfully  submit,  then,  that 
•  this  is.  the  gravamen  of  the  charge-  put.  forth  by  Mr.  and  Mrs. 'Butler;  be- 
cause, .  if  he  were '•  in  the  state'  described  by  the  latter,  then  the  moral 
motive  could'  not  have •  attached  independently  of  the  act  of  intoxication;  . 
and.  on.  this  subject,  without  -dwelling'  upon  it,  for  I  do  not  medh  to  make  it 
a  prominent  ground  of -defence, 'I  offer  the  .very. sound  rule  of  law  as  to 
liow.far  intoxication  may.  be  taken  as  explaining  the  motive  of,  a  supposed 
crime.  \  I  am'awiare  that. the  general' principle  jn  courts  df  law,  is,  that 
intoxication  aggravates ,  the  crime,  because-  the  party,  is  then  guilty  in  a 
double  se'rise,-  having  first  made'himself  an  irrational  being,  and  then  com- 
mitted the  offence.  But,  when  the*  crime  depends  on  motive,  or  intent,  the 
law  admits  the  distinction  that'.then  the  intoxication  may  be  regarded  upon 
the  question  of  motive, 'and  the  crime  itself,  so  far  as  intent  is  concerned, 
may  -be  held' not  to  have  been  committed.  ,1  refer  on  this  subject  to 
1  Rus&ell  on  Crimes',  p.  &,  where'  it  is  said,  that  '.'  although  voluntary 
drunkenness  cannot  excuse  from  the-  commission  .of  a  crime,  yet  when,  as 
upon  a- .charge  of  .'murder,  the  material  question' is,  whether  an  act  was  • 
premeditated',  .of  done  only  with  sudden  heat  and  impulse,  the  fact  of  the 
•party  being'  intoxicated  has  been  holden'to  -be  a  circumstance  proper  to  be 
taken  into  consideration."  There/ as  here,  the  question  is 'one  simply  of 
.intent.  If  is  that.whrch  constitutes,  the  crime  ;  and  the  circumstance  of 
intoxication  is,  therefore,  proper  to  be  taken  irito" consideration,  for  the  pb- 
v-ious-  reason  that  it  goes'  to  show  'that  the  act  was  induced  by  a  state  of 
feeling  .which;  of  itself -deprives  it  of  deliberate  intent,  and  renders  the  al- 
,  legation  of  immo.rality  and  impurity  on  the  part^of  the-  Respondent  entirely 
untenable.  I  put  it  to  the  Caurt,  then,  as  a  consideration  entitled  to  great 
weight,  npt  as  controverting  the  general  principle  respecting  the  immorality 
of  intoxication,  bu't  as  showing,  that  the  intent. and  motive  are  explained1 
away  Jb'y  the  attendant  circumstances.  •  • 


There  is  on6  other  feature  about  .the.  testimony  of 'Mrs.  Butler  which 
will  probably  strike  the  Court  more   forcibly  than  myself,  as   i  did  not 
hear  h'er  give  her  evidence,  and  which  I   also  submit.     Here  is'  a  lady 
coming  forward  and  testifying,,  seven  or  eight  years  dfter  they  occurred,  to 
these  circumstances,  and"  testifying  to' them  too  with' a  degree  of  precision 
and  accuracy  only  reconcilable  •„ with  the  inference  which 'I  suggest, -with- 
out imputing-  any  improper  design  to  her — that  they  have  been  exceedingly 
well  digested.     I  ask  whether  it  .is  within  the  range  of  possibility  or  -prpb-  • 
ability,  that  a  witness  who,  according  to  her  own  account,  has  not  even 
conversed  with  her  own  husband  on  the  subject  since  the  occurrence  took 
place,  seven  or  eight  years  ago,  could' yet,  with  entire  adherence  to 'truth, 
come  forward  now  with  a  perfect  narratioa  of  all  that  took  place,  even  to 
the  minutest 'details.  ?  .  It  is  here  proper  to  bear  in_mind  that  clear  proof — 
not  such  as  this  witness  has  given, — a  precise  narrative — but  proof  which 
has  probability  on  the  .face  of  it— proof  surrounded  by  a  little  forgetful- 
ness,  and  deriving  from  that  very  fact  additional  confirmation — that  proof 
of  this  character  should 'be  •  insisted  on  in  a  case  like  the  present.     Is  it 
not,  I  repeat,  most  extraordinary,  in  connection  with  the  remark  just  of- 
fered, that  -this  witness,  according  to  her  own  story,  has  not  had'  the  ad- 
vantage of  refreshing  her  memory  by  conversation  with   her  husband ; 
and  yet  her  evidence  is  given  with  a  precision  of  style  as  remarkable  as 
if  her  story  had  been  wrkten  and  carefully  committed  to  .memory,?     To 
my  mind,  at  least,  it  is  not  reconcilable  with  probability-1— with  the  accu- 
racy of  the  story — with  its  actual  and  real  .truth,  (and  here  again  I  disclaim 
any.  purpose  of  imputing  a  corrupt  motive  to  the  witness,)  that  testimony 
of.  this  character  should  be  implicitly  or  safely  relied  upon  as  free  from 
that  spirit  of  exaggeration,  which,  without  imputing  falsehood^  should  yet 
detract  greatly  from  its  credibility.     Arid,  in  connection  with  this  idea, 
ihere  is  a  fact  in  the  story  of  Mrs.  Butler,  which  struck  my  mind  as  hav- 
hvg  a  most  controlling  influence  on  the  interpretation  of  her  evidence.    On 
tht1?  occasion  when  the  first  aggression  was  made-; — which. was,  as  she  de- 
scribes it,  as  gross  as  any  thing -could  be — she  represents  herself  as  seated 
beside  a  man  in  a  state  of  intoxication,  and  who  had  just  placed  "his  arm 
under  and  around  her,  and  pressed  her  b&som.     She  supposed  this  act  to 
be  unintentional,  and  explained  it  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an  innocent 
freedom,  such  as  he  had  been  in- -the  habit  of  taking  occasionally  from  her 
infancy.     Now,  if 'she  is  so  charitable  in  relation  to  the  first  aggression, 
the  apology  being  just  as  applicable  to  the  second,  though  not  to  the  same 
extent,  why  may  she  not  be.  mistaken  in  the  construction  how 'placed  Upon 
the  Second 'incident-  to  which  she  refers  ?     XVhy'not,  fd.r  some  motive  or 
cause  impossible  for  us  to  divine,  and  which,  after  the  lapse  of  years',  it  is 
impossible  to  explain,  may  she  not  have  .been  induced  to .  exaggerate  the 
subsequent  portion  of  her  story ,.  and  from  the  state  of  her  alarm  and  ner- 
vousness, produced  by  the  condition  in  which  she  says  she  found  the  Bish-. 
op,  why  may  she  not  have  been  led  mistakenly  to  suppose  that  the  latter 
circumstance  proceeded  from  some  bad'  motive^  indicating. an  immoral  or- 
impure  state  of  mind  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  ?     Is.it  pot  perfectly,  rea- 
sonable—is  it  not  fairiy  reconcilable  with  every  just  presumption  of  fact, 
that  such  was  the  case  ?     B*ut,  again,  it  is  a  most  .remarkable  fact?' (and  I 
make  this  observation  in  relation  'not  only  to.  this  witness,  but  to  every, 
other  of  the  witnesses  testifying  to  these  acts  of  aggression,)  that  an  indig-' 
nity  of  so  gross  a  character  could  have,  been  committed  upon  her,  and  that 


.human  nature  did  not  at  the  moment  break  over  every  barrier,  and  resent 
•  the  affront.  Can"  it 'be  possible  that  men  possessing  the  ordinary  feelings 
and-emotions.of  men, "can  believe  that  the  frivolous  excuse  offered  in  this 
tasc — that  is,  the  fear  of  jeopardizing  the-  spiritual  welfare  of  the  driver, 

.'Peek — would. have  been  sufficient  to  account  for  her  tame  submission  to 
such  gross  in-sults  ?  Can  it  be  possible  that  any  rational,  thinking  man, 
can  regard  with  favor  an  excuse  like  that,  when  the  impulse  of  a' wronged 
and  offended  'woman  must  have  overcome  every  restraint,  and  when  tlie 
man  guilty  of  committing  such  an  indignity  on  her  person  mus.t  have  been 
punished  on  the  spot  to.  the  full  extent  of  female  vengeance?  It  seems  to 
me  too  absurd  for  belief.  In  cases  of.  this  kind  all  motives  of  prudence 
are  overcome,  because  nafure  herself  governs  the  action,  and  breaks  over 
every  obstacle  to  her  struggle  for  protection  against  insult  and  aggression. 
I  say,  therefore,  it  is  incredible  that  if  this  lady  had  sustained  this  indig- 
nity, she  could  have  silently  submitted  to  it  for  the  flimsy  reason  she  has 
given- — her  concern  for  the  spiritual  condition  of  Mr.  Peck,  the  driver — a 
reason  which  I  oiust  say  almost  seems  as  if  it  had  been  given  in  mockery 
of  that  {jiety  which  it  affects  to  exhibit.  And  are  not  these  gross  improb- 
abilities such  an  explanation  as  comes  within  the  rule  to  which  I  have  • 
referred,  and  which  ought  to  be  received  with -regard  to  an  occurrence- 
taking  place.many  years  ago,  and  of  which  a  direct  contradiction  or  ex- 
planation is  impossible  ?  '  And  ought  they  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  full  and 
sufficient  defence  against  such. an  allegation  as  the  present? 

But  it  -seems  this.story  was  known  in  Utica  in  July,  1838.  It  was  .there" 
the  subject  of  conversation,  and  was  known  ta  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  and 
others  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church.  Is  it  not  your  duty  to  believe,  if  you 
attach  to  these  gentlemen  responsibility  for  faithfulness  in  the  discharge 
of  their  duty  to  the  Church,  that  if  these  charges  had  then  readied  their 
present '  aggravated  form,  some  •  attempt  would  have  been  then  made  to 
bring  the  Bishop  to  punishment,  or  to  ah  account  for.  the  offence  ?  But 
whatdo  we  find  ?  Why,  that  six  and  a  half  years  after  these  facts  were 
detailed  to  Dr.  Hawks,  Dr.  Taylor,  and  others  high  in  the  Church,  and  by 

•them  passed  over,  they  are  now  brought  forward -and  made  the  .foundation 
of -a  Presentment  Against  the  Bishop  ;  and  all  this  after  the  charges  had 
been  communicated  to,  and  set  aside  by,  men  bound  by  the  most  solemn 

.obligations  to  discharge  their  duty  to  the  Church  and  to  the  cause  of 
religion  and  •  virtue,  ajid  who  are  not,  I.  believe, to  be  suspected  of  any 
such  warm  persoilal  attachment  to  the  accused  as  to  warrant  the  be- 
lief that  regard  for  him  .interfered  with  tlicir  conscientious  discharge 
of  duty-!  I  say,  therefore,,  that  .there  is  something  more  than  mere 
lapse  of  .time  to  be  taken  into  view,  as  an  explanation  of  these  charges, 
.The  offence  complained  of  by  Mrs.  Butler  was  a  thing  talked  of,  can- 
vassed, and  dismissed  years  ago,  and  only  revived  now,  when  it  becomes 
necessary  for  other  purposes,  having  no  connection  with  the  complaint  it- 
self. 'For  these  purposes  it  is  now  raked  up,  and  the  Bishop  is  held  to  the 
conclusion  of  guilt,  according  to  the  argument  of  the  opposite  Counsel,  un- 
less, after  this  lapse  of  time,  he  can  satisfactorily  explain  the  circumstan- 
ces, and  establish  his  innocence.  '  I  say,  then,  that  the  motives  appearing- 
on  the  face  of-  the  prosecution  itself,  the  long  silence  respecting  the  accu- 
sation, the  passing  it  over  under  the  circumstances  already  referred  to,  the 
peculiar^  incidents  connected  with  its  reproduction  now,  the  extreme  mi- 
nuteness of  the  evidence  of  the  single . witness'  who  sustains  it,  the  frivolous 


166 

excuse,  offered  by  her  for  her  inexplicable  conduct  on  the  occasion  in  ques- 
tion, all  constitute  grounds  pf  defenpe  which  in  my  judgment  the  Court 
cannot  possibly  resist.  .  > 

But.  the  -Counsel  will  gay  that  .Mrs.  Butler  is  sustained  by  another  wit-  - 
ness,  and  will  refer  you  to  the  testimony  of  her  husband.  What  is  Jhat 
testimony  ?  It  appears  that  Mr.  Butler  was  riding  with  his  .wife  on  that 
occasion,  and  in  his  affidavit  before  the  Presenters,  he  stated  that  the  Bfshop 
attempted  to  'raise  the  clothes  of  Mrs.  Butler  ;  and  I  have  very  good  rea- 
son for  believing  that. that  single  fact,  stated  in  the  affidavit,  was  the  only 
one  on  which,  upon  the  ground  that  no  charitable  answer  could  be  given  to 
it,  strong  reliance  was  placed,  as  rendering  this  prosecution  of  the  Bishop 
necessary.  In  regard  to  all  the  other  facts,  some  'explanation,  it  was  aid- 
mitted,  might  •  be  conceived.  The  fact  pf  putting  an  arm  around  a 
lady's  .waist  could  be.  explained,  consistently  with  the  absence  of  vicious 
motive,  and  might  have  been  the  result  of  mere  accident  and  without  de- 
sign. But  the  fact  of  raising  her  clothes  could  not  be -explained  so  as  to 
remove  the  imputation  of  immorality  and  impurity.  And  |  yet,  strange  to 
say,  acting  under  the  full  knowledge  of  this  fact,  he  would  have  you  T>e- 
.  lieve  that  he  permits. the  Bishop  to  remain  in  his  carriage,  takes  him  to  the 
place  of  his  destination,  and  permits,  him  to  lay  his  unhallowed  hands  .upon 
his  head  the  next  •  day  in  ordination  !  I  ask  whether  it  is  hp.t  charity  to 
Mr.  Butler  to  discredit  his  story,  and  infer  that  hep  acted  under  some  other 
motive,' and  that  he  did  not 'believe  that  any  thing  was  done  by  the  Bishop 
designed  to  be  offensive,  or  which  he  as  a  husband  oughf  to  have  construed 
as  offensive.?  Can  U  be  possible  ?'  Is  there  a  mantle  of  charity  broad 
enough,  or  a  principle  of  Christianity  that  could  cover  the  conduct  of.  a 
man  whp  could  be  present  and  permit  such  an  indignity 'to  be  offered'  to  his 
wife  without  attempting  to  resent  it?'  Is  it  conceivable  that  any  man 
would  .permit  it  without,  Iwas  going  to  say/punisliing,  but,  as  applied  to 
this  meek  minister,  I  will,  say  admbnishing  the  guilty  party  ?.  .  Is  it  possi- 
ble to  conceive  that  the  husband  who.believfcd'such  a  story  of  wrong  to,- his 
wffe,  could  allow,  the  author  of  the  indignity  tp  be  the  instrument  by  whom' 
he- himself  was  admitted  into  the  ministry  of  God  ?  .  I  cannot  believe  it..  I 
cannot  believes  that  any  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth  is  depraved  enough 
to- exhibit  such  an  utter  want  of  sensibility,  such  an  utter  want  of  all -that 
is  due  to  the  dignity  of  man.  And  yet  that  is  the  story  which  Mr.  Butler, 
would  have  you  believe  ! 

But  is  there  nothing  else  to  contradict  it  ?  He  is  bro'ught..here  for  the 
purpose-of  confirming  the  testimony  of  his  wife.  He  is  the  man  through 
whem.  this  accusation  has  found  its  way  into  this  Presentment..''  And 
coupled  with  the  very  affidavit  on  which  .this  Presentment  was  founded,  you' 
have  an  apologetic  letter,  taking  back  the  most  aggravated  features  of  the 
charge  to.  which  he  permitted  himself  to  sweat.  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
he  has  stated-  in  his.  affidavit  that  attempts  were  made  to  raise  his  wife's, 
clothes,  and  that  he  retracts  it  in  his  letter,,  how  can  this  Court,  say 'thathe  is 
to  be  relied  upon  ;n  all  or  any  of  the  other  essential  particulars  to  which  he- 
has  testified  ?.  If  in  the  very  gravamen  of  the  charge  he  has  been  so  greatly- 
mistaken,  or  as  he  -very  modestly  expresses  it'in  his  letter,  showing  riot  a 
very  high  sense  of  morality,  I  must  say,  fallen  into  a  "  trifling."  inaccura- 
cy in  his  statement,  how  can  the  Court  rest  satisfied-of  his  accuracy  with 
regard  to  the  other,  and  in  comparison,  minor,  points  of  his.  testimony  ?.  I . 
regard  his  sjtory  as  a  tissue  of 'exaggeration  from' beginning  to  end';  and  I 


submit  that  the  whole  story  of  Mrs.  Butler,,  and  the  motives  attributed  to 
the  Bishop  in  the  first  instance,  have  since  received  their  exaggeration  for 
some  reason  not  avowed  in  this  case, — or  that  at  least  it  is  impossible  for  the 
Court  to  say  to  what  precise  extent  'that  story  is  true.  And  no  principle  is 
better  settled,  than  that  when  it:  is  impossible  to  ascertain  how  much,of  a, 
story  is  true,  and  what  part  is  false,  the  whole  is  to  be  discarded-  You 
cannot  .rely  upon  certain  portions  likely  to"  be  true,  when  your  moral  cer- 
tainty has  been  shaken  by  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  the  story  is  certainly 
untrue  or  clearly  improbable. 

But  \ve  have  been  called  on  to  explain  this  charge ;  and  I  ask  again, 
what  explanation  can  be  given  under  .the  circumstances  ?  Can  it  be  ex- 
plained by  any  human  testimony-  whatever  ?  or  can  any  defence,  be 'offered 
except  that  afforded  by  a  close  examination  of  the  allegation  itself,  and 'the 
testimony  offered  in  its  support,  resulting  in  a  conviction  of  the  improbabil- 
ity of  the  greater  portion  of  the  story  as  tested  by  the  ordinary  motives 'of  • 
human  action  ?  .•'..." 

I  will  npt  venture  to  suppose  that  such  a  charge  could  be  presented 
against  any  member  of  this  Court ;  but  let  each  member  place  himself  in 
the  position  of  the  Respondent,  and  say  how,  after  such  a  lapse  of  time,  he 
could  make  a  more  -satisfactory  explanation  than  that  now  offered  by  the 
accused  3  Nay,  in  the  very  Presentment  we  are  deprived  of  the  opportunity 
of  explanation-.  -  In  the  affidavit  oj"  Mr.  Butler,  the  name  'of  Mr.  Peck  is 
given  as  a  party  wha  was  present  on  the  occasion  in  question  ;  but  in  the 
specification  the  name  is  omitted,  and  Mr.  Peck .  is  described  as  a  person 
unknown  :  and  we  are  thus  precluded,  until  the  trial  has  commenced,  frpnv 
the  possibility  of  gaining  any  clue  tp  the  testimony,  or  even  the  name  of 
that  individual.  It  >vas  incumbent  on  .the  prosecution  to  have,  produced 
that  witness..  He,  according  to  this  account,  was  cognizant  of  scenes  and 
circumstances  which  Jie"could  riot  have  readily  forgotten.  I  do  not  say  that 
the  name  of  this  witness  has  been  designedly  withheld  for  the.purpose  which 
has  been  effected,  but  I  do  complain  that  it  has  not  been  furnished  to  us; 
within  the  spirit  of  the  Canon  under  which  the  charge  is  made.  I  pass  over, 
with  these  remarks,  the  charge  in  relation  to  Mrs.  Butlerr  leaving  to  my. 
learned  associate,  who  so  ably  conducted  her  cross-examination,  and  whose  • 
impression  of  the  evidence  in  that  case  will  necessarily  l>e  stronger  on  that  ac- 
count. Tn  rnmnlpto  thp  ansilv«i<:  and  royiou-  of  tko  tostij-po™}'  in  Support  of 

the  first  two  specifications.  I  shall,  before  leaving  this-  subject,!  however, 
refer  for  a  moment  to  the  charge. of  intoxication.  Suppose  it  .to  be  proved, 
as  it  is  charged,  that  the  Respondent,  on  a  certain  occasion,  seven  or  eight 
years  ago,  .had  drunk  too  freely 'of  wine,  and  was  somewhat  excited. by  it. 
Is  it  not  sufficient  to  say  that  that  is  the  only  charge,  and  only  preteece  of  : 
any  accusation  of  that  character  throughout  the  whole  of  fhat  time  ?  And 
I  ask,  whether,  even  supposing  that  fact  to  have  been  admitted  by  the  Re- 
spondent, any  member  of  the  Court  woukl  hesitate  a  moment  in  discharging 
him,  from  any  necessity  oferitering  on  an  explanation  of  that  circumstance, 
or  even  any  penitence  on  the  subject,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  his  whole 
course  of  life,  both  before  and  since  that  occurrence's  a  sufficient,  atone- 
ment for  that  exception  to  his  general  conduct.  This  of 'itself  is  a  reason, 
and.-strong  argument  in  fayor  of  the  position  which  I.  assumed  at  the  outset 
of  my  remarks,  that  the  present  immorality — the-  present  unfitness— the 
present  condition  of  mind  of  thfe  party— is,  after  all,  whatever  the  forni  of 
the  specifications,  the  only  legitimate  subject  of  inquiry.' 


168 

I  come  now  to  the  charge  attempted  to  be  sustained  by  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  .Bolles — the  third  specification, — -which  alleges,  "  that  on  or  about  the 
21st  of  August,  1838,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  being  then  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  was  travelling  in  a  public  stage  from  Batavia  to  Utica,  both 
in  the  same  Diocese  of  New  York,  for  the  purpose  of  attending  the  meeting 
of  the  Convention  of  the  said  Diocese,  then  about  to  be  holden  at  Utica ; 
that  the  only  passengers  in  the  said  stage  were  the  said  Bishop,  the  Rev'. 
James  A.  Bolles;  and  a  young  woman,  to  the  said  Presenting  Bishops  un- 
known, and  whose  name  they  are  not  able  to  furnish  ;  that  the  said  Bishop 
and  young  woman  occupied  the  back  seat,  and  the  said  James  A.  Bolles 
the  middle  seat  of  the  said  stage;  and  thereupon  afterwards,  the  said  Ben- 
jamin T.. Onderdonk  impurely  and  unchastely  put  his  arm  aroujld  the  body 
of  the  said' young  woman,  and  took  other  indecent  liberties  with  her  per- 
son, and  behaved  in  so  improper  and  unbecoming  a  manner  that  the  said 
young  woman  endeavored  to  get  beyond  the  reach  of  the  said  Benjamin  T. 
Onderdonk ;  and  finally,  with  a  view  to  escape  his  rudeness,  left  the  stage 
before  reaching  the  place  of  her  destination  ;  which  said  conduct  of  the 
said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  the  said  Bishops  present  as  contrary  to  his 
consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church 
aforesaid." 

I  do  not  know  that  I  am  justified  in  occupying  the  attention  of  the  Court 
with  any  remarks  on  this  charge,  as  it  is  most  manifestly  unsustained  by 
the  evidence  offered  in  its  support.  The  Counsel  on  the  other  side  may  not, 
however,  take  that  view  of  it.  At  all  events,  I  will  be  able  to  show,  with- 
out occupying  much  time,  that  the  acts  described  in  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Bolles,  so  far  from  indicating  any  immorality,  of  impurity,  or  indelicacy,  on 
the  part  of  the  Bishop,  were  of  the  most  innocent  character,  without  any 
motive  whatever,  and  altogether  free  from  any  such  imputation  as  that  de- 
scribed in  such  glowing  terms  in  the  specification  which  we  are  now  exam- 
ining. 

Upon  this  branch  of  the  case,  however,  there  were  three  questions  put  to 
Mr.  .Bolles  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  of  South  Carolina,  (Bishop  GADSDEN,) 
the  answers  to  which  entirely  dispose  of  the  charge  in  question.  As  they 
appear  in  the  record  they  are  : 

"  By  Bishop '(TADSDE.N — The  Presentment  says  the.  Bishop  put  his  arm 
around  the  body  of  the  young  woman ;  did  you  witness  any  thing  of  the 
kind?  No,  sir,  I  did  not." 

"By  same — The  '  Presentment  says  that  he  took  other  indecent  liberties 
with  her  person .;  what,  were  they  ?  Ans.  This  Presentment  was  drawn  up 
without  any  consultation  with  me  .by  the  Presenters.  I  saw  none  that  I 
considered  indecent  liberties,  or  that  could  come  under  that  name/' 

"  By  same — So  far  as'you  know,  did  the  said  young  woman  endeavor  to 
get  beyond  the  reach  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  ?  Ans.  No." 

It  was  notwithstanding  attempted  to  be  proved  here,  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  Bishop  was  guilty  6f  impurity,  that  on  a  special  occasion, 
when  waited  on  upon  this  subject,  he  attempted  to  denycertain  facts  proved 
!>y  Mr.  Bolles.  The  conversation,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  however, 
had  reference  to  a  fact  testified  to  by  Mr.  Bolles,  namely,  that  the  Bishop 
had  taken  up  a  child  from  the  back  seat  of  the  carriage,  in  order  to  show 
it  something  .which  attracted  attention  as  they  we*e  passing  along  the  road  ; 
.and  so  determined  was  the  disposition  to  eke  something  out  of  this  conver- 
sation prejudicial  to  the  Bishop,  that  the  Counsel  for  the  prosecution,  failing 


169 

entirely  in  the  case  itself,  as  it  stood  on  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bolles,  the 
only  witness  cognizant  of  the  facts,  have  endeavored  by  the  evidence  of  Dr. 
Taylor  to  cast  suspicion  upon  the  transaction.  If  the  learned"  Counsel  had 
intended  to  redeem  the  pledge  given  in  the  opening,  he  would  at  once  have 
abandoned  that  charge,. and  asked  permission  of  the  Court  to  strike  it  from 
the  Presentment.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  intends  to  press  it  now  or  not, 
or  whether  or  not  his  •entertains  the  idea -that  there  is  anything  in  this 
charge.  But' 1  put  it  to  the  Court,  on  their  recollection  of  the  evidence, 
whether  it -can.  for  a  moment  be  sustained.  Their  own  witness  has  failed 
them,  and  in  the  face  of  his1  positive  testimony,  how  can  they  expect  the 
Court  to  credit  the  charge  ? 

I- come  now  to  wJiat  I  suppose  the  opposite  Counsel  regard  as  one  of  the 
most  important  charges — the  fifth — resting  on  the  testimony  of  Miss  Helen 
Rudderow  ;' passing  over  the  fourth  specification — the 'witness  to.  whom  it 
refers  having  sent  a  letter  to  the  Court,  from  which  it  seems  that  the  charge 
was  made  without  her  authority,  and  which  is  therefore  understood  to  be 
abandoned.  The  fifth  specification  charges,  "  that  between  the  months  of 
May  and  July,  1341,  to  wit,  on  or  about  Sunday,  the  13th  day  of  June,  in 
said  last  mentioned  year,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderxionk,  then  being 
Bishop  as  aforesaid,  visited  St.  James's  Church,  Hamilton-square,  New  York 
city;  that  soon  after  the  services  of  the  church  Were  ended,  and  on  the  day 
jast  aforesaid,  he  left  the  said  church  in  a  carriage,  in  company  with  Miss 
Helen  M.  Rudderow,  a  young  lady,  to  proceed  a"s  a  guest  to  the  house  of 
her  brother,  John  Rudderow,  Esq. ;  that  while  riding  in  the  said  carriage, 
by  the  side  of  the  said  young  lady,  he,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
impurely  and  unchastely  thrust  his  hand  beneath  her  dress,  upon  the  bosom 
of  the  said  Helen  Rudderow,  to  her  great  shame  and  consternation,  and  in 
violation  of  the  proper  duty  of  a  Bishop,  and  in  breach  of  the  consecration 
vow  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  and  to  the  great  scandal  and  in- 
jury of  the  Church  of  Christ." 

Before  discussing  the  evidence  bearing  upon  this  charge.  I  take  occasion 
to  say,  that  it  is  not  my  intention  to  weary  the  patience  of  the  Court  by  ex- 
ami'ning  the  minor  discrepancies  in,  and  contradictions  of,  the  testimony  of 
any  of  the  witnesses,  but  merely  to  advert  to  the  leading  facts  as  testified  to 
by  them,  and  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  what  I  deem  the  most  pal- 
pable improbabilities  in  these  statements,  as  well  as  to  adduce  from  extrin- 
sic source?!,  such  contradictions  as  may  tend  to  show  the  stories  ought  not 
to  be  believed. 

And  first,  then,  T  ask  whether  a  more  improbable  story  on  its  face  was 
over  told,  than  that- by  Helen  Rudderow  in  relation  to  the  insult  alleged  to 
have  been  offered  to  her  by  the  Bishop  1  What  is  it?  In  substance  it  is 
.this:  that  after  church  service  on  the  morning  in  question,  an  invitation 
was  extended  to  the  Bishop  ,to  dine  at  the  house  of  her  brother ;  that  she 
and  the  Bishop  got  into  the  carriage  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Richmond,  the  Rector 
of  the  church,  to  go  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Rudderow;  that  the  distance  was 
about  three  quarters  of  a  mile,  and.  that  the  time  occupied  in  performing  the 
journey  was  half  an  hour — (a  mast  unusual  length  of  time,  certainly ;) 
that  immediately  after  getting  into  the'carriager-the  Bishop  made  a  most  in- 
delicate assault  upon  the  person,  of 'the  lady,-  without  being  noticed  by  Mr.' 
Richmond,  who,  although  driving  the  horse,  was  yet  engaged  in  conversa- 
tion with  the  Bishop,  and  was  not  absolutely  obliged  to  have  an  eye  on  the 
animal  constantly — country  clergymen's  horses  not  being,  I  believe,  partic- 

22 


170 

ularly  -addicted  to-running  away — (a  laugh.)  She  says  that  after  the -first 
advance,  which  she 'repelled,  the  Bishop  thrust  his  ha'nd  into  her  bosom,  and 
kept  "it  there  during  the  whole  of  the  ride — that  this  was  done,  with  a  third 
party,  a  clergyman,  sitting  in  the 'same  carriage,  on  the  front  seat,  engaged 
too  in- constant  conversation  with  the  Bishop— with  many  persons  probably 
passing  along  the  road  ;  in  fact,  with -every  thing,  as  to  time,  and  .'place,  and 
circumstance  the  .most  likeiy  to  lead  .to  observation,  detection,  and  expo- 
sure. 

[Bishop  HOPKIXS — That  is  not  exactly  the  testimony. 

Bishop  MclLVAiNE — She  states  that  the  Bishop  "  continued  to  thrust  his 
hand  into  her  bosom." 

Mr.  GRAHAM — rThe  statement  is,  I  think,  as  I  have  given  it ;  hut,  suppo- 
sing it  to.be  as  suggested,  that  the 'attempt  was  frequently  repeated,  it  ohly 
renders  the  story  more  improbable,  as  it  shows  the  greater  probability  of 
detection-. 

Bishop  HOPKINS — So  that  we  have  the  testimony  right,  sir,  it  is  all  that 
we  want.] 

.  Mr.  GRAHAM  proceeded— Upon  this  statement,  then,  I  ask  the  Court,  is  it 
possible  that  any  man/could  have  acted  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Bishop 
is  represented  to  have  acted  by  this  witness  ?  Is  it  possible  that  any  man 
of  sense; — without  saying  one  word — -without  making  A.  single  a.dvance  in 
the  shape  of  language,  either  indelicate  or  otherwise,  as  she  states — with  a 
lady  of  whom  he  knew,  very  little,  could  take  such  liberties  as  those  de-' 
scribed-?  Is  it  at  all  within  the  limits  of  possibility,  that  •  a  man  could, 
while  riding,  in  broad  daylight,  in.  a  wagon  in  company  with  a  clergyman 
with  whom  he  was  constantly  engaged  in  conversation,  take  such  liberties 
with  a  lady  sitting  by  his  side — thrust  his  hand  into  her  bosom  repeatedly. 
and  keep  it  there — :and  yet  escape  detection  and  exposure  ?  Is  it  at  all  prob- 
able that  any  man  could  have  been  guilty  of  such  folly'  as  to  incur  such  a 
risk  ?  Did  the  Bishop  know  -that  the  lady  would  not  at  once  resent  the  in- 
:  Suit  ?  Had  he  any  reason  to  suppose,  assuming  her  story  to  be  true,  that 
her  sense  of  the  insdlt  would  not  have  broken  forth,  and  at  once  exposed 
him  ?  Certainly  she  haS  .given,  us  no  ground  for  supposing  that  she  was  of 
such  a  frivolous  or  wanton  disposition,  as  to  warrant  the  beji'ef  that  she  was 
not  likely  to  resent  such  an  affront  with  the  promptitude  and  decision  of.  a 
virtuous  and  indignant'  female.  Yet  she  would  have  us  believe  that  the 
Bishop  actually  committed  the  offence  with  the  certainty  before^him  of  in- 
stant exposure ! 

But  let  me  ask  the  Court,  fs  it  possible  that  the  circumstances  could  have 
occurred,  consistently  with  -any  of  the  motives  which  ordinarily  attach  to 
human  action  ?  Is  it  at  all  possible  that  this  conduct  could  have  been  un- 
observed by  Mr.  Richmond,  with  whom  not  only  the  .Bishop,  but  the  lady 
herself, -was  conversing  all  the  time,  to  the  extent  on  her  part,  as  she  cau- 
tiously avers,  of  returning  very  sho.rt  answers'to  the  remarks  addressed  to 
her?— '-a  circumstance  o?  itself  calculated  to  excite  attention.  I  repeat, 
can  it  be  possible  that  a  gentleman  could  thrust  his  hand  into  the  bosom  • 
of  a  lady,  sitting  beside  him  in  a  carriage,  she  having  a  High-necked  dress? 
too,  and  do  this  repeatedly,  and.  yet  escape  the  observation  of  a  third  party 
sitting-  immediately  in  frbht  of  them,  and  engaged  in  conversation  with 
them  ?  '  •  . 

[Bishop  FREEMAN- — I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  confirm  the  original  state- 
.   ment  of  the  Counsel.     When  asked,  "  How. long  did  the  Bishop's  hand  con- 
.        :  '  •    &    " 


171' 

tinue  on  your  person  the.  second  time  ?"  she  replied,  "  Till  w.e  readied, 
home."          .  .  .  .'.,'• 

Bishop  LEE. — I  wish  here  to  make  a  correction.  The  Counsel  spoke'  of 
her  dress  as' being  a  "  high-necked" 'one—- 
Mr. GRAHAM — I  was  about '  to  correct  myself  on"  that  point.  I  believe 
she  said  it  was  a  low-necked,  dress — but  thai,  as  is  obvious,  only  renders 
the  story  more  improbable,,  inasmuch  as  with  such  a  dress. detection,  was. 
still  more  likely,  the  hand  being  more  readily  observable.] 

Mr.  GRAHAM  proceeded. — I  now  come  to  Jhe  testimony  of  the  other  Miss 
Rudderow,  in '  relation  to  whom  the  sixth  specification  charges,  "  that  on 
tke  same  day  mentioned  in  the  last  specification,  the  said  Benja:man  T.  On- 
derdonk,  Bishop  as  aforesaid,,  was  received  at  the  house  of  the  said  John 
Riidderbw,  in  the'parlor  thereof,  by  Jane  O.  Rudderow,  and  that  thereupon . 
the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  impurely  and  unchastely  thr.ust  his  hand 
into  the  bosom  of  the  said  Jane  O.  Rudderow,  and  upon  being  repelled, 
took  other  indecent  and  unbecoming  liberties  with  the  said  lady,  in  viola- 
tion-of  his  duty  as  a  .Bishop  and  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and 
to  the  great  scandal  and  disgrace  of  his  said  office."-  •' 
,  Now.-if  the  story  told,  by  Helen  Rudderow  be  improbable,  'as.  I  think  i§ 
most  manifest,  what  will  the  Court  think  of  that  of  the  other  young  lady, 
'her  sister?'  It  appears  that  immediately  after  Miss  Helen  had  returned 
home,  she  went  up  stairs  and  found  her  sister,  who  by  reason  of  a  sick' 
headache,  had  left  church;  early  and  returned  home  ;  that  Miss  Helen  at 
once -communicated  to  Jane  what  the'  Bishop  had  done,  and  requested  her 
.to  go  down  stairs  and  "entertain  him,"  she  promising,  to  go  down-  herself" 
as  soon  as  she.  'could  .become  somewhat  more  composed ;  and  that  in  con- 
sequence of  this1  request,,  Jane  immediately,  and  without  .the  slightest  hesi- 
tation whatever,  went  down  stairs,'  and  although  perfectly  apprized  of  the 
state  of  rnihd  attributed  to  the  Bishop  on  the 'part  of  Helen,  at  once  has- 
tened to  entertain  him.  She  found  the  Bishop  standing  at  the  centre-table; 
he  immediately  accosted  her ;  said  he  must1  cure  .her  of  her  sick  head- 
ache, and  taking  her  by  the  hand,  'which  she  gave  without  any -reluctance, 
led-her-to  the  sofa,  which  stood  near.  tHe  door;  which  was  open,  and  her 
brothers  being  at  the  same  time  in  the  entry;  and  then,  without 'say  ing  a 
wqrd,  the  Bishop  committed  upon  her  the  first  indecency  of  which  she 
complains,  as  she  describes  it  in  her  testimony.  Well,  then,  it  seems  that 
without  being  at'  all  alarmed  by  t'his  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop, 
and  with  the  story  of  her  sister's  wrongs  yet  ringing  in  'her  ears,  she  re-  • 
.mained.  in  the  room,  contenting  herself  with  the  precautionary  measure  of 
merely  m6ving  J'o  the  other,  end  of  the  sofa- — upon  which,  the  Bishop,  as 
she  says,  followed  her,  and  repeated  the  insult.  Still  she  gave  no  alarm. 
It  would  indeed  appear,  that  all  these-ladies  who  have  been  insulted  in  this 
gross  way,  are  actuated  by  very 'different  principles  of  resentment  from 
those  which  usually,  manifest  themselves  in  the  sex,  and,  the  total  absence 
of  which,  under  circumstances  like  these,  is,  I  apprehend,  wholly,  ihexpli- 
cable.  From  an  unwillingness  to  give  any  alarm  which  would  attract  the 
notice  of  her  brothers  in.  the  entry,  she  remained  perfectly  quiet!  She 
heard  footsteps  on  the  stairs',  and  the  Bishop,  •  hearing  them  also,  hastily 
moved  to  the  other  end  of  the  sofa; — rushed,'  I  think  .she  says. 
[Bishop  LEE—"  Sprang."] 

Mr.  GRAHAM— ^-That's  the  word  :  "  sprang"  to  the  other  end  of  the  sofa. 
Well,  the  lady  whose  footsteps  were  heard,  entered  the  room.     She  was 


172 

the  'sister-in-law1  of  the  young  lady,  and  if  the  story  of  the  witness  be  true, 
is  it  possible  that  she  could  have  failed  to  observe  some  evidence  of  confu- 
sion or  embarrassment  on  the  part  of  one  or  both  of  the  parties  on -the 
sofa  ?  Yet  she  is  not  produced  here,  and  no  attempt  is  made  to  offer  any 
corroborative  evidence  on  her  part,  by  showing  what  she  could,  not  but 
have  observed.  I  ask,  is  not 'this  of  itself  significant?  And  is  it  not  a 
fact,  at  least  worthy  of  attention,  that  not  a  single  member  of  that  house- 
hold, some  of  whom  must  have- observed  some  evidences  of  the  qccurreh- 
ces  described,  is  produced  on  this  occasion  ? 

And  here,  no.w,  let  me  inquire,  is  the  story  of  the  young  lady  probable  ? 
Is  the  statement  at  all  reasonable  ?  Does  it  carry  with  it  probability  on  its 
face,  that  the  Bishop  could,  in  a  room  with  the  door  wide  open,  accessible  to 
the 'lady's  mother  and  sister-in-law,  with  hei  brothers  in  the  entry,  with  all 
the  certain  means  of  detection,  with  an  absolute  impossibility  of  escape, 
without  any  knowledge  of  the  disposition,  certainly  of  tl\e  willingness  of  the 
party,  have  acted  as  this  witness  would  have  us  believe  ?  •  Is  such  a  course 
of  conduct  probable  on  the  part  even  of  an  idiot  ?— who  would,  in  the. ab- 
sence of  reason,  have  yet  instinct  enough  to  preserve  him  from  the  cominis-. 
sion  of  acts  so  certain  of  detection  and  of  punishment. '  Yet  to  all  these 
insults  the  young  lady  quietly  submitted,  and. that,  too,  after  she  had  been 
told  of  what  had  taken  place  in  relation  to  her  sister  !  . 

But  to  proceed  with  her  story.  Her  sister-in-law  enters  the  room  ;  she  i* 
herself  in  some  confusion,  but  nobody  observes  .it.  The  Bishop  is  \alsp 
confused,  but  nobody  observes  it.  Her  sisfer-in-law  enters  the  room— kloes 
this  young  liady  who  has  just  been  so  grossly  insulted,  leave'  it — does  she 
at  once  retire  ?  She  had  a  good  excuse  for  withdrawing,  without  creating 
suspicion,  by  reason  of  the  ailment  of  which  she  complained,  and  her  sister- 
in-law's  presence' effectually  relieved  her  from  the  necessity  of  "entertain- 
ing" the  Bishop  ;  yet,  does  she  -leave  the  room  ?  No!  She  remains,  and 
takes  part  in  the  conversation  until  dinner-time.  She  then  takes  her  seat 
at  the  dinner-table — the  Bishop  is.  of  course,  there.  During  all  this  time 
nothing  appears  in  the  conduct  or  .manner  of  eiijier  of  these  -yojung  ladies, 
that  attracts  the  attention  of  any  one.  Immediately  after  dinner  the  com 
pany  separate  ;  they  withdraw  to  the  piazza  for  the  purpose  of  viewing  the 
surrounding  scenery — the  Bishop  among  the  rest..  This  ybung  lady,  whose 
nervous  headache  had,  it  appears,  miraculously  disappeared,  and  \vho,  if 
desirous  of  escaping  from  the  Bishop,  had  that  very  good  excuse',  instead  of 
retiring  to  her  room  and  giving  vent  to  "her  feelings  of  mortification  ami 
shame,  follows  the  rest  of  the  company  to  the -piazza.  The  person  nearest 
to  her  appears  to  have  been  the  Bishop.  He  asks  her  something  about  the 
house  of  Mr.  Schermerhorn,  which  was  to  be  seen  at  a  short. distance,  and 
Ihen,  again,  while  these  six  or  seven,  persons  are  present,  and  while  she 
and  the  Bishop  are  walking  on  the  piazza,  with  their  backs  turned  to  the 
rest  of  the  company,  she  avers  that  he  again  took  improper  liberties  with, 
her  person* — that 'the  Bishop  again  thrust  his  hand  into  her  bosom  through 
her  high-necked  d  ress. ! 
.  [Bishop  LEE — Is  that  testified  to'? 

Mr.  GRAHAM — It  is,  in  substance,  though  I  do 'not  pretend  to  be  strictly 
accurate  in  regard  to  the  precise  words  in  which  she  gave  her  evidence.; 
and  that,  becayse  I  do  not  desire  to  fatigue  the  Court  by  reading  .the  min- 
utes of  'testimony  which  they  will  doubtless  carefully  review.  If  1  be  in. 
error  in  any  particular  so  far  as  the  substance  is  concerned,  however,  the 


"173 

Court  can  readily  correct  me,  and  I  shall  esteem  it  as  a  favor  if  they  do, 
The  point  of  my  rema-rk  is'not  at  all  affected,  whether  she  testified  that  the 
Bishop  put  his  arm  around  her  wais.t,  or  thrust'  his  hatid  into  her  bosom- 
both  actions  were  alike  liable  to  .certain  detection  by  the  six  or  seven  per- 

. sons  on  .the  piazza.]        *.  '     . 

Mr.  GRAHAM  proceeded — She  then  goes  on  to  say,  that  she  immediately 

•  retreated  into1  the  room,  whither  she  was  immediately  followed  by  the  Bishop, 

'  and  that  in  a  short  time  all  the  other  members  of  the  family  were  collected 
there,  and  engaged  in  conversation,  in  which  the  Bishop  took  part — that 
being  anxious  to  Rnow  whether  it  wa,s  raining,  (Which  she  could  easily 
enough  have  ascertained  while  on'  the  piazza  immediately  previous,)  she 
arose  and  went  to  the  window — •'  as  quick  as  thought"'  (that  may  not  have 
been  the  expression,  but  it' was  the  idea. — )  fhat  the  Bishop-  abruptly  broke 
off' from  conversing  with  her  mother,  started  up  after  the  young  lady,  rushed 
behind  the  window  curtain- of  three  Feet  three  inches  in  width,  and  again 
thrust  his  hand  into  her  .bosom-r— she  still  giving  no  alarm,  but  quietly  re- 
treating from  the  window.  With  the,  recital  of  this  last  indignity,  the 
tragical  story  of  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  terminates. 

•  Now,  I  ask  the  Court  with  perfect  confidence,  whether  they  can  be- 
lieve the  stories  of  these  young  ladies  as  they  are  told  in  the  direct  ex- 
amination'? I  as'k,  is  it  possible  that  these  insults  could  have  been  perpe- 
trated'  upon  them 'over  and  over  again,  and  under  the  circumstances  de- 
scribed, without  "their  being  observed  by  some-one  ?  Or  w-hether  any  wo- 
man woultl  have  submitted  to  such  an  indignity  without' immediately  taking 
some. means  to  prevent  its  repetition  or  to  punish  the  offender?  The  feel- 
ings of  a  v.i-rtuous,  woman  would  in  such  circumstances  have  broken  forth 
irresistibly — the  feelings  'of  the  family  would  have  been  excited  and 
aroused — and.  the  aggressor,  be  he  Bishop  or  any  thing  else,  would  have 
been  expelled  the  house,  whose  inmates  he  had  insulted,  and  whose  hospi- 
tality he  had  so  grossly  outraged.  I  say  this,  because  it  is  not  in  human 
nature  that  any  man. could  so  grossly  insult  two  virtuo.us  females — again 
and  again  insult  th'em — and  yet  not  only  have  escaped  summary  vengeance, 

.  but  not  even  the  slightest  intimation  have  been  conveyed  to  him  from  any 
quarter  that  he  hadjbeeh  guilty  of  the  least  misconduct.  But  yet  such  is 
tihe"  story  these  young  ladies  would  have 'us  believe.  They  would  have  us 
believe  that  they  were  both  wantonly,  vilely,  and-  repeatedly  insulted  by 
the  Bishop,  and  that  yet  no 'reproof 'escaped  them— no  confusion  betrayed 
the  wounded  feelings  of  the  woman — no  indignant  manifestation  of  disgust 
appeared !  .  .  •  , 

.1  should  have  no  hesitation  -whatever,  in  leaving  this  story  of  the  Rudde- 
rows  on  their  own  mere  narration,  and  feel  the  most  perfect  confidence  in 
the  judgment  of  the  Court  upon  it'wilhout  offering  a  word  of  contradiction 
or  comment.  But  the'  lea,rned  Counsel  on  the  opposite  side  will 'strenuously 
insist  upon  their  truth,  and  will  no  doubt  infuse  a  vast  deal  of  "virtuous  in- 
dignation into  his  comments  upon  their  evidence,  which  I  must  endeavor 
to  anticipate  and  neutralize,  by  pointing  out  a  few  of  the  contradictions 
which  they  have'  encountered  from  witnesses  whose  motives  and  veracity 
are  beyond  suspicion  or  question-. 

The  opening  Counsel  himself  admitted;  in  "one  of  the  addresses  that  were 
made  to  the  Court'  during  the  incidental  discussions'  in  the  case,  that  if.  it 
could  be  proved  that  on  any  subsequent  occasion  these  young  ladies  met 
the  Bishop  on  the  same  terms  of  cordiality  as  before  the  alleged  offences, 


t  :,,;.        m       :.    • 

the  Court  might  be  .justified  in.,  entertaining,  the  belief  that  the,  indigni- 
ties complained  of  could  not  nave  been  'perpetrated,  notwithstanding  their 
testimony  on  the  trial.  That  conclusion  is  as  just  as- it  is  unavoidable.  If 
these  ladies  had  received  these  indignities,  certainly  on  eVery  subsequent 
occasion  they. would  have  avoided  the  aggressor?  and  their  conduct  would 
uniformly  have  shown,  that  they  entertained  a -proper,  sense 'of  their  own 
'dignity,  and.  of  the  gross'  misconduct  of  the-  Respondent.  In  this,  and  in- 
another  case  to  which  I  shall  more  especially  refer  hereTafter,  we  have  in- 
troduced all  the  evidence  that  was  reasonably  to  be  expected-  in-  proof  of 
the  innocence  of  the  accused.  We  could  not,  of.course',  directly  contradict, 
these  charges  'by  direct  testimony'.  At  all  events,  we.ceuld  not  prove,  by 
direct  testimony  that  the  Bishop  ha^l  not  committed  the  acts  complained  of. 
With  a  view,  therefore,  to  furriesh  the. only  testimony  accessible  by  us,  and 
to  show  that  this  story  is  grpssly  exaggerated,  at  least,  if  not  wholly  untrue, 
we  have  introduced  a  mass  of  testimony  clearly  irreconcilable  wifh  their 

•  evidence.  First,1  we  bave  .adduced  evidence  relative  tb  the  meeting  of.  the 
parties  a  year  after  the  date  of  the  occurrences  described  bythes^  young 
ladies.  The  Court  cannot  haye  forgotten  the  manifest  attempt  on  the  part 
of  both  to 'evade  any  inquiry '.relative  to  that  meeting,  obviously -because 
they  were  aware  of  .-the'  inference  .which  would  inevitably  result  from  any 
admission  of  the  truth.  Accordingly,  you'-will  recollect  that  it  was  with 
great  difficulty  thai,  a  direct  answer  could  be  obtained  frpm  them  to -any  in- 
quiry on  this  s.ubject,  and,a/te'r  all  it  was  apparent  that  something  was  kept 
back.  There  was* .a  want  of  frankness"  and  candor  which  the  Court  must 
have  observed.  For  instance,  without'geing  into  it  minutely,  it  will  be  re- 
collected that  one  of  the  Misses.  Rudderow. slated  that  the  Bislwp  was  '•'  in- 
troduced'by  Mr.  Dowdoey,'"  evidently  with  the  view  to  leave  the  impres- . 

•sion  that  there  was  no  cordial  greeting  on  ^er  part,  and  that  she' took  the 
Bishop's  hand,  not 'from  respect  to 'him,,  but  on  account  of 'the  gentleman 
who  effected  the  introduction..    .So  in  relation  to  the  meeting. on  the  stairs, 
or  in  the  vestibule  after  the  morning  service.     Miss.  Helen  Rudderow  e\i-- 
dently  wished  to  make  it  appear  that  she  had  remained  in  the  oi'gan-loft 
for  the  purpose  of. avoiding,  the  Bishop  :  showing;  an  evident  desire  on  the 
part .  of  these  witnesses  not  to  inform,  the  Court  frankly,  but  to  avoid  in- 
their  testimony  any  admission  calculated  to  "help  the  inference  which  they 
saw  must.be  drawn  from  the  -truth  of  ^he  transaction.   '  In  this  connection,  I 
ask  the  Court-  to  recollect  the  manner  in  whrch  Jane'  attempted  to  gef  rid', 
of  the  effect  of  her  meeting  with,  the  Bishop  at  his  study,  in'  December^ 
1842,  and  her  "excuse  for  going  (out  of  a  society  of  ten  or  twelve. persons), 
on  a  voluntary  mission  to  him  for  the  putpose-of.  soliciting,  a*  favor..    Ac- 
cording to  her. account  of  it,  she  went,  to  the 'Bishop's  house  under  a  sort  of 

.moral  constraint,  as'she  would  have  the  Court  to  believe — because  $Jie  was 
the  only  pei-son  who  could  have  done  so  with  the  best  .hope  t>f  success-^— and 
she  was  wrlling -to  submit  to  a  lesser  evil  to  accomplish  a  greater  good. 
Now  take  our  witnesses,  arid  it  is  perfectly  apparent — it  is  incontrovertiblej 
that  on  all  tbese  subsequent  occasions,,  at  all  these  interviews,  there- was  a 
cordiality  of  manner  between  the  parties  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  in- 
ference or  pretence  that  the  facts  of  which  they  complain  on  a  previous 
occasion  had  any  existence.  • 

^In  the  first  place,  as  tolhe  meeting  in  the  church,  we -have  presented  the 
testimony  of  the' Rev.  Mr.  Dowdney.  He  is. not,  Tad'mit,  a  very- expert  or 
practised  witness-;  but  I  think  I  may  safely  appeal  to  -the  Court  whether 


the  obscurity  of  his  manner  does  not  urise-  frqm  an  excessive  conscientious- 
,ness, and  a  dread  (entertained  often  by  the  most  honest  witnesses)  that  the 
English  language  is  a  sort  of  trap  for  their  consciences,  of  which  they  must 
at  all  times  be  exceedingly  wary.  Mr.  Dowdney  could  certainly  have  no 
motive  in  coming  here  to  mislead  the  Court,  and  by  perjury  to  falsify  the 
testimony  of  these  young  ladies.  If  he  had  come  with  such 'a  design,  he 
surely  would  have  had  a  story  better  prepared,  and  bearing  on  more  impor^ 
•tant  points  than  those  upon  which  he  has  given  his  testimony.  In  substance 
his  evidence  is  this — that  one  morning,  about  a  year  after  the  time  to  which 
the  evidence  of  the  young  ladies  referred,  he  met  the  Bishop  at  the  church 
— that  they  "walked  up  the  aisle  together— that  the  ladies  were  there,  and  at 
once  cordially  recognised  and  saluted  the  Bishop;  One  of  them  pretends 
that  Mr.  Dowdney  introduced  the  Bishop,  but-  Mr.. D.  swears  that  the  re- 
cognition was  cordial  and  voluntary.  Certainly  there  must  be  an  attempt 
on  the  part  of  one  or  other  of  the  witnesses  to  mislqad  the  Court  in  some 
way — which  of  them,  it  is  most  probable,  I  leave  the  Court  to  judge.  Is  it 
not  most  probable  on  the  part  of  the  individual  on  whose  sense  of  delicacy 
the  point  in  question  most  strongly  bears  ?  It  was  incumbent  on  the  part 
of  the  lady  to  prove  the  virtuous  indignation  felt  by  her  on  account  of  the 
former  conduct  of  the  Bishop,  "by  showing  that  she  treated  him  uniformly  . 
afterwards  with  coolness.  .She  therefore  could  not,  consistently  wjth  a  be- 
coming feeling  of  -pride,  admit  the  fact  proved  by  Mr.  Do.wdney,  that  she 
and  her  sister  met  the  Bishop  in  a  frank,  and  cordial,,  and  friendly  manner. 
And  if  any  contrary  feeling  had  existed,  it  certainly  was  not  possible  that 
it  could  have  escaped  the  notice  of  even  the  most  casual  observer.' 

I  think  it  is  not  going  too  far  to  argue,  if  we  suppose  that  the  Bishop  pos- 
sessed commen  sense,  and^he  had  been  conscious  of  having  offered  such. an 
insult  and  affront  to  fhese  ladies,  that  he.  would 'have  studiously  avoided 
'them. .  That  he  would  not  have  been  willing  -to  •expose  himself  to  their  re- 
proach, OF  what  would  haye  been  more  probable,  the  repulsion  which  he 
was  naturally  to  expect  2  Yet  we  find  him,  with  the  frankness  of  inno- 
cence, meeting  them,  giving  them  his  hand  in  -cordial  salutation,  entering, 
.into  conversation  unreservedly  with,  them,  arid  extending  to  them  courtesies 
which  were  as  freely  and  frankly  returned.  . .  .  • 

But  in  addition  to  all  this,  we  have  the  fact  of  the  -subsequent- interview 
of  Jane  Riidderow  with  the  Bishop,  at.  his  study,  which,  it  seems  to  me, 
puts  down  any 'pretence  that  these  indignities  could  haye  been  offered  not 
only  to  herself  but  to  hfer  sister.  'I  certainly  carinot  suppose  that  any 
female  of -proper  feeling  could  be  guihy  of  such  an  indignity  to  her  qwn 
sister,. as  voluntarily,  and  unnecessarily,  to  extend  to  a  man  who  had  effer- 
ed  such  an  affront  as  that  stated  in  her  evidence,  the  unusual  courtesy  of 
seeking  him  out,  waiting  upon  him  at  his  hoftse, -and  consenting  to  become 
a  suppliant  to  him  for  a  favor..  Yet  it  is  in  evidepce,  that  Jane  Rudderow, 
in  December,  1842;  went  to  the  house  of  the  Bishop,  in  cdmpany  with  Miss 
Riker,  for  such  a  purpose.  -  It  is  true 'she 'states  that  Miss  Riker  induced 
her  to  go  with  her  on  .that  occasion.  But  in  this,  she  is  expressly  contra- 
dicted by  the  testimony  of- Mr.  .Dowdney  arid  of  Miss  Rutter,  both  of  whom 
agree  that  JMiss  Jane,,  when  this  subject  was  spoken  of,  volunteered  to  go  to 
the  Bishop's,  house  ;  And  that  on- the  .question  being. asked  if /she  knew  the 
Bisftop,  she  replied  that. she.  knew  him.  intimately,  -thus  conveying  an  im- 
pression'to  Miss  Rutte.r,  utterly  irreconcilable  -with  that  which  she  would 
now  have  the  Court  to  believe.  .The  only  solution  of  her  conduct  consis-- 


tent  with  ordinary  female  delicacy  is, 'that  she  went  there  because  there  was 
no  pretence,  or  ground  of  pretence  on  her  part,  of  any  indignity  having- 
been  offered  her  by  the  Bishop,  and  because  she  was  quite  unconscious  of  the 
existence  of  any  cause  that  ought  to.  have  disturbed  their  friendly  relations. 
To  suppose  any  other  state  of  facts,  would  be  to  impute  to  her,  that  in  go- 
ing there  she' was  guilty,  of  a  wanton  compromise  of  that  dignity  of  charac- 
ter which  is  never  wanting  where  female  virtue  is  outraged,  or  even  where 
it  exists.  And  is  there  any  doubt  of  these  facts  ?  Have  'we  not  proved, 
beyond  a  question,  if  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Dowdney  and  Miss  Rutter  be 
true,  and  there  are  no  reasons  to  suspect  the  contrary,  that  these  young 
ladies,  upon  these  several  occasions,  acted  in  such  a  manner  as  to  repel  the 
belief  that  the  Bishop  had  previously  insulted  them  1  And  how  can  the 
prosecution  escape  from  the  effect  of  the  contradiction  of  the  witnesses  by 
whom  these  charges  are  attempted  to  be  sustained?  Our  witness.es  could 
have  no  motive  to  mislead  the  Court.  While  those  to  whom  they  stand  op- 
posed have  every  motive,  so'to  color  the  transactions  referred  to,  as  to  recon- 
cile them  with  a  becoming  sense  of  wounded  delicacy,  and  thus  endeavor 
to  convince  the  Court,  even  against  probability,,  that  they  had  uniformly 
acted  consistently  with  these  feelings,  and  with  the  truth  of  the  story  they 
.have  told.  It  is  a  sound  and  salutary  principle  of  law  as  well  as  of  morals, 
that  a  witness  who  is  false  in  one  thing,  or.  who  either  prevaricates,  or  mis- 
represents, or  distorts  particular  facts  upon  which  he  cannot  well  be  mista- 
ken, is  to  be  discarded  altogether,  as  false  in  all.  Of  the  soundness  of  the 
rule,  no  question  will,  I  am  sure,  be  made ;  but,  as  tending  to  illustrate  its 
force  in  the  present  instance;  I  beg.  leave  to  refer  on  this  point  to  a  case  jde- 
cided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  the  case  of  .The  Santissima 
•  Triniddd,  7  Wheaton,  338,  which  was 'a  libel  founded  upon  the  allegation 
of  illegal  equipment  and  illegal  augmentation  offeree  wiihin  the  ports  of 
the  United  States.  la  corrrrnenting  upon  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  to 
sustain  the  libel,  Mr.  Justice. Story  makes  these  .general  observations,  the 
applicability  of  which  to  the  present  case  cannot  but  strike  the  Court :  "  If 
the  cause  stood  solely  upon  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  who  'nave  been 
examined  on  behalf  of  the  libellants,  we  should  have  great  hesitation  in 
admitting  the  xionclusions  which  Have  been  drawn  from  it.  The  witnesses, 
indeed,  speak  directly  and  uniformly  either  to  the  point  of  illegal  equipment, 
or  illegal  augmentation  of  force  wiihin  our  ports.  But  their  testimony  is 
much  shaken  by  the  manifest  contradictions  which  .it  involves,  and  by  de- 
clarations of  facts,  the  falsity  of  which  was  entirely  within  their  knowledge, 
and  .has  been  completely  established  in  proof:.  It  has  been  said,  that  if  wit- 
nesses concur  in  proof  of  a  material"  fact,  they  ought  to  he  believed  in  re- 
spect to  that  fact,  whatever  may  be  the  other  contradictions  in  their  testi- 
.  mony.  That  position  may  be  'true'  under  circumstances  ;  but  it  is  a  doc- 
trine which  can  be  received  only  under  many  qualifications,  and  with  great 
caution.  If  the  circumstances  respecting  which  the  testimony  is  Discordant 
be  immaterial,  and"  of  such  a  nature  that  mistakes  may  easily  exist,  and  be 
accounted  for  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the. utmost  good  faith- and  proba- 
.bility,  there  is  much  reason  for  indulging  the-  belief  that  the,  discrepancies 
arise  from  the  infirmity  of 'the  human  mind,  rather  .than  from -deliberate 
error.  But  where  the  party  speaks  to-  a  fact  in  respect  to  which  lie  car\not 
be  presumed  Jiable  to  -mistake, — as  in  relation  to  the  country  of  his  birth, 
or  his  being  in  a  vessel  on  a1  particular  voyago,  or  living  in  a  particular' 
place — if  the  fact  turn  out  otherwise,  it  ife  extremely  difficult  to  exempt  him 


177 

from  the  charge  of  deliberate  falsehood  ;  and  courts  of  justice,  under  such 
circumstances,  are  bound,  upon  principles  of  law,  and  morality,  and  justice, 
to  apply  the  maxim  of  'falsus  in  uno,  falsus  in  omnibus.'  "  The  Counsel 
on  the  opposite  side  will,  however,  probably — upon  their  assumption  that 
the  evidence  of  the  witnesses  is  shaken  in  some  of  its  minor  particulars — 
insist  that  the  Court  is  still  to  determine,  upon  a  review  of  it,  whether  the 
main  fact  is  not  established,  and  that  the  whole  of  the  testimony  is  by  no 
means  to  be  discarded,  because  certain  portions  of  it  may  be  untrue.  I 
admit  this  to  be  so,  as  to  unimportant  discrepancies  or  contradictions.  But 
how  can  it  apply  to  facts  tending  to  show  the  sense  entertained  by  the 
complaining  parties  of  the  very  acts  of  which  they  complain,  and  going 
conclusively  to  disprove,  upon  every  sound  principle  of  reasoning,  the  im- 
probability and  untruth  of  the  facts  themselves,  or  at  least  of  the  coloring 
with  which  they  are  now  invested  ? 

If  then  I  have  been  successful  in  showing  either  such  a  glaring  improb- 
ability in  the  direct  testimony  of  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution,  or  such 
a  direct  contradiction  of  them  with  respect  to  collateral  circumstances  of 
such  a  character  as  that  they  could  not  have  forgotten  or  be  mistaken  in 
regard  to  them,  I  ask  the  Court  on  what  ground  they  can  withhold  from 
the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  the  application  of  that  sound  and  salutary 
principle  of  the  law  to  which  I  have  referred  ?  You  are  surely  not  to  set 
about  the  dangerous  and  uncertain  task  of  groping  between  truth  and  false- 
hood. But  if  the  story  itself  be  tainted  with  falsehood,  if  it  be  irreconcila- 
ble with  that  most  certain  standard  of  truth — this  motives  which  ordinarily 
influence  and  control  human  action — and  if,  in  addition  to  all  this,  it  be 
plainly  and  palpably  contradicted  in  material  points  by  reliable  and  disin- 
terested testimony,  the  protection  of  innocence,  and  the  sound  and  salutary 
administration  of  justice,  alike  require  that  it  should  be  utterly  disregarded. 

I  come  now  to  the  last  case  embraced  in  these  specifications — the  case  of 
Mrs.  Beare,  stated  in  the  7th  and  8th  articles  of  the  charges.  The  7th 
specification  charges,  "that  on  or  about  Sunday,  the  seventeenth  day  of 
July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-two, 
the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdo'nk,  then  being  Bishop,  as  aforesaid,  held  a 
confirmation  at  Zion  Church,  Long  Island,  in  the  Diocese  of  New-York; 
that  after  the  services  were  ended,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  re- 
turned to  the  house  of  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare,  in  company  with  Mrs. 
Charlotte  Beare,  the  wife. of  the  said  Henry;  that  the  said  Benjamin  T. 
Onderdonk  and  Charlotte  Beare  occupied  the  back  seat  of  the  said  car- 
riage, and  the  other  persons  in  the  same  were  so  situated  as  to  have  their 
backs  towards  the  Bishop  and  the  said  Charlotte ;  that  thereupon  the  said 
Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  impurely  and  unchastely  put  his  arm  around  the 
body  of  the  said  Charlotte  Beare,  drew  her  towards  himself,  and  at  the  same 
time  felt  her  bosom  in  an  improper  and  indecent  manner,  so  as  to  scandalize 
the  feelings  of  said  lady,  and  cause  her  to  remove  herself  from  him  as  far 
as  the  side  of  the  carriage  would  permit,  to  avoid  his  rudeness ;  in  violation 
of  his  duty  as  a  Bishop,  and  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the 
disgrace  of  his  said  office." 

The  eighth  specification  charges,  '•'  that  in  thfe  afternoon  of  the  said  sev- 
enteenth day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-two,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  held  a  confirmation  at  the 
Whitestone  Chapel,  on  Long  Island  aforesaid  ;  and  after  the  services  went 
to  spend  the  evening  at  the  residence  of  Joseph  L.  Franklin,  Esq.,  on  said 

23 


Long  Island  ;  that  about  nine  o'clock  at  night  the  said  Bishop  was  return- 
ing home  to  the  house  of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare,  where  he  was  a  guest 
as  aforesaid,  and  was  accompanied  in  the  carriage  of  the  said  Henry  M. 
Beare  by  the  said  Charlotte  Beare,  the  wife  of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare, 
she  being  constrained  by  circumstances  to  ride  with  said  Bishop  against  her 
own  desire  ;  and  she  and  the  said  Bishop  sitting  alone  on  the  back  seat ; 
that  while  thus  on  their  way,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  again  in- 
sulted the  said  Charlotte  Beare  in  the  grossest  manner,  by  impurely  and 
unchastely  putting  one  arm  around  her  body,  while  he  thrust  his  other  hand 
beneath  her  dress  upon  her  naked  bosom  ;  that  upon  the  same  being  indig- 
nantly repelled,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  repeated  the  indignity, 
and  finished  his  acts  of  rudeness  by  passing  his  hand  in  the  most  indecent 
manner  down  the  body  of  the  said  Charlotte  Beare,  outside  of  her  dress,  so 
that  nothing  but  the  end  of  her  corset-bone  prevented  his  hand  from  being 
pressed  upon  the  private  parts  of  her  body.  All  which  acts  and  doings 
threw  the  said  Charlotte  into  the  deepest  distress ;  to  the  manifest  scandal 
and  injury  of  the  Church  of  which  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  was 
a  Bishop,  and  in  violation  of  his  vow  before  God,  solemnly  entered  into  at  his 
consecration." 

The  testimony  in  support  of  these  charges  is  derived  wholly  from  Mrs. 
Beare  ;  and  I  cannot  refrain  from  remarking  on  it  in  the  outset,  that  a  more 
gross  and  infamous  outrage  than  that  which  she  has  imputed  to  the  Respon- 
dent, cannot  be  conceived  ;  and  that  unless  the  Court  are  prepared  to  say, 
upon  the  most  satisfactory  and  clear  evidence,  even  supposing  themselves 
not  bound  by  the  rules  of  divine  and  human  law,  to  which  I  have  referred, 
that  this  charge  has  been  sustained,  that  they  are  called  upon  to  give  the 
Respondent  the  benefit  of  the  rational  doubt  which  is  created  by  the  mon- 
strous character  of  the  accusation,  and  allow  it  of  itself  to  be  a  sufficient 
and  perfect  exculpation. 

What  are  the  facts  to  which  Mrs.  Beare  testifies  ?  She  states  that  after 
Church,  in  the  morning  of  the  day  to  which  she  refers,  she  was  riding  with  the 
Bishop  and  her  husband's  mother,  in  a  carriage  driven  by  her  nephew,  and 
was  seated  with  the  Bishop  on  the  back  seat — her  nephew  driving,  and  her 
mother-in-law  sitting  with  him  on  the  front  seat ;  and  that  the  Bishop,  with- 
out saying  one  word,  of  any  kind,  put  his  arm  around  her  in  an  unbecom- 
ing manner,  which  caused  her  to  draw  from  him,  and  that  his  hand  pressed 
upon  her  bosom.  This  was  the  whole  of  the  first  aggression. 

Now  it  is  a  very  remarkable  coincidence,  that  Mrs.  Beare  introduces  this 
first  indignity,  to  the  Court,  under  precisely  the  same  circumstances  as  Miss 
Helen  Rudderow,  without  a  single  word  being  uttered  by  the  Bishop  in 
advance  of  the  insult.  The  Court  are  to  recollect  that  this  was  a  lady  to 
whom  the  Bishop  had  been  introduced  only  on  the  12th  of  the  same  month, 
(the  act  complained  of  being  on  thg  17th,)  and -that  when  thus  introduced 
to  the  Bishop  he  had  merely  met  her  at  dinner — and  the  extraordinary  fact 
therefore  is  presented,  which  you  are  called  on  to  believe,  that  the  Bishop, 
on  again  meeting  this  lady,  with  whom  he  was  90  slightly  acquainted,  with- 
out knowing  any  thing  of  her  character  or  her  temper,  without  having  had 
the  slightest  opportunity  of  forming  any  judgment  as  to  how  such  an  ad- 
vance would  be  received,  in  an  open  carriage,  in  mid-day,  in  company 
with  her  mother-in-law  and  nephew,  and  while  they  were  conversing 
together,  as  she  admits,  actually  offered  her  an  insult  of  the  grossest  char- 
acter, and  pressed  his  arm  around  her  waist,  and  his  hand  upon  her  bosom, 


179 

without  uttering  one  word;  .and  with  almost 'a  moral  certainty  of -immediate 
detection  and  exposure  by  the  lady  herself,  and  the  other  parties  in  the  car-, 
riage !,     .  •  ,  .'•'.•' 

.'  Upxm  the  face' of  the  story  itself,  I  ask  the  Court,  can  they  indeed  seriously 
.regard  it  as  at  all  probable  ?  .Well,  the  lady  goes  on  "to  say  "that  she  was 
very  much  distressed  by  the  circurn,stancer  and  that  when  she  reached 
home  she  communicated  it  to  her  husband,  whp  attempted  to  explain  it  by 
saying  that  the  .Bishop  could  not  have  meant  anything.  .  She  next  proceeds 
.  to  narrate,  what,,  strange  to  say,  is  wholly  omitted,  in  the  specifications — that 
once  before  dinner,  and  once  after  dinner,  in  her  own  house,  the  Bishop  re- 
peated indignities  of  the  very  character  which  had  occurred  in  the  carriage, 
and  that  too  in  presence  of  her  mother. 
.  [Bishop  MC!LVAINE.  Her  husband's  mother.'  •  . 

Mr..  GRAHAM.      I   thank   you  for   the   correction ;  it  was;  I  find,,  her 
mother-in-law.] 

Mr.  GRA^M  proceeded.  So  that  after  she  Tlad  intimated  the  matter  to 
her  husband,  and  before  dinner,  another  attempt  was.  she  avers,  made;,  and 
a  still  more  direct  one  made  after  dinner,  hot  mentioned  to.  any  body,  and 
not  embraced  in  these  affidavits.  And  yet.  notwithstanding  -all  these  indig- 
nities, the  lady  goes  on  to  state  that  in  proceeding  to  the  house  of  Mr, 
Franklin,,  where  they  were  invited  to  spend  the  evening,  with  all  her  pre- 
tended disgust  at  what  had  passed,  she  got  out  of  her  brother-in,-law's  car- 
.  riage,  at 'the  head  of  the  lane,  a  distance  of  only.a  quarter  of  a  mile,  (be- 
cause, forsooth,  her  brother-in-law  desired  immediately  to  return  ttv  her  hus- 
band's house,)  and  took  her  seat  in  another  carriage  beside  the  Bishop,  and 
was  thus  driven  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Franklin.  I  mention  these  facts  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  the  spirit  of  exaggeration  has  evidently  entered  into 
-the  story  told  by  Mrs.  Beare  ;  and  I  was  exceedingly  glad  that  the  witness 
.was  brought  to  state  it,  because  it  showed  the  true  state  of  her  mind  on  this 
subject :,  and  from  the  manner  of  the"  Counsel  I  was'led  to  believe  that  the 
crowning  act  of  all  these  enormities  was  about  to  be  drawn  out.  During 
the  visit  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Franklin.  Mrs.  Beare  stated,  in  reply  to  the 
question  of  the  Cotfnsel,  "  Did  not  something  very  remarkable  occur  at. Mr. 
Franklin's  ?"  that  the.  Bishop  had  been  engaged  in  conversing  with  Miss 
Franklin,  and  that  Mr.  Smythe,  to  whom  she  was  .then  engaged,  said  in.  the 
very  hearing  of  the  Bishop,  in  reference  to  some  u.ndue  freedom  on  his  part, 
that  if  it  were  not  for  his  gown,  he  (Mr. -S.)  would  have  'inflicted  per.sonal 
chastisement  upon  him.  Now,  after  all  the  parade  with  which  this  fact 
was  brought  out,  9n  her  own  admission,  it  appears. to  have  been  a  mere 
playful  remark,  solemnly  dragged  into  the  case  for  the  purpose  t>f  prejudi- 
cing the  Bishop  ;  and  when  we  have  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Franklin  and 
Mr.  Smythe  on  the  subject,  it  turns  out  to  have  been  no  remark  at  all — no 
•remark  whatever  having  been  made  on  the  occasion  by  Mr.  Smythe,  pointing 
to  any  freedom  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop. 

Well,  after  the  incidents  of  that  evening  at  Mr.  Franklin's,  including,  of 
course,  the  very,  "  remarkable  incident."  elicited  with  such  solemnity  by  the 
Counsel.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  return  home,  and  during  .her  'ride  home-, 
wa.rd,  her  husband  and  nephew  being  on  the  front  seat,  she  goes  on  to  say, 
and  I  shall  .give  the  story  in  her  own  words  :  "  The  Bishop  put  his  arm 
around  my  waist,  then  raised  it,  and  put  it  across  the  back  of  my  neck ; 
thrust  his  hand  into  the  neck  of  my.dress,  down  into  my  bosom.  I  threw 
his  hand  from  there — he  immediately  put  it  uppn  the  lower  part  of  my  per- 


180 

son.     I  pushed  it  aside  from  there,  and  he  then,  with  the  other  hand,  repeated 
the  same  upon,  the  other  side  of  my  person,  out  removed  it  toward  the  centre 

'of  my  person..  I  threw  it  aside.  That  is  all."  She  •  is  then  .asked, 
"  When  Vie  put  his  hand  in  the  neck  of  your  dress,  on. your  bosom,  was  it 
or  not  on  .your  naked  bosom  ?•"  She  answers,  "It  was  my  naked  bosom.". 
After 'stating  that -in  all  these  instances  the  palm  of  the  Bishop's  hand  was 
next  her  person,  she  testifies  that -he  placed  one  of  his  hands  '•'  near  her  knee, 
and  moved  it  along  her  leg  up  to,  her  hip,  and  the  centre  of  her  person." 
And  all  this  was  done,  without  a  word  of  any  kind  addressed  to  her  by  the 
Bisljop,  without' a  lisp  of  remonstrance  on  her  part ;  she  sitting  immediately 
behind  her  husband,  and  near  enough,  as  she  says,  to  have  touched  him, 
and  without  any  interruption  of  the  conversation  which  was  going  on  ! 

Need  I  ask  whether,. upon  the  face  of  this  narrativ.e,  describing,  if  it.  be 
true,  one  of  the  most  gross  outrages  which  the  mind  -can  conceive,  there  is 
not  stamped  the"  most  glaring  and  palpable  improbability  ?  Could  the  one- 
tenth  of  it  have  occurred  to  any  woman  without  an-outcry  or  alArm — with- 
out 'remonstrance  or  complaint — without  an  appeal  for  protection, .  to  the 
husband,  who,  rio  less  than  herself,,  was  outraged  by  .the  act  ?  Is  it  not  top 
much  to.  believe^  that  human  nature  could  have"  been  .so  restrained,  as  she 
would  have  you  suppose,  by  respect  for  the  office  of  the  Bishop,  or  by  the 
fear^of  attracting  the  notice  of  the.  little  boy  in  front,  as  to  have  prevented 
her  from  instantly  resenting  the  indignity  1 

I  ask  this  Court  to  judge  of  this  story  by  the  impulses  of  human  nature, 
and  not  by  a  straiglit-laced  stoicism,  repulsive  to  every  ordinary  sensibility  of 
th,Q  human  heart.  .Is  it  credible  that  any  man,  I  care  not  who  he  is,  riding 
with  a  lady  to  whom  he  was  almost  a  perfect  stranger,  could  place  his  hand 
on  her  bosom,  and  on  other  parts  of  her  person,  and  perpetrate  the.  other 
outrages  attributed  to  the  Respondent,  so  revolting  in  their  character  that  I 
will  not  offend  the  ear  of  this  sacred  tribunal  by  their  repetition,  and  yet 
not  a  murmur  at  the  indignity  escape  the  victim  ?  • 

But,  to  proceed  with  the  narrative.  Mrs.  Beare  reaches  her  home  in  com- 
pany with  the  Bishop  and  her  husband.  She  tells  these  facts  to  her  husband 
after  her  return,  and  before  they  part  from  the  Bishop  for  the  night.  The 
husband,  on  hearing  her  story,  says,  "  Well,  never  mind,  say  nothing  about 
it,  and  we  will  go  down  and  have  family  prayers."  They  go  down  to  fkmily 
prayers,  continuing  the  hospitalities  of  the  household,  which  he.  had  so 
grossly  outraged, 'towards  the  Bishop — manifesting  towards  him  the  same 
outward  marks  of  deference  as  before,  they  meet  him  in  the  study,  and  after 
joining  with  him  in  prayer,  they  retire.  Is  there  any  man — is  there  any 
thing  possessing  the  form  of  a  man,  to  say  nothing  of  the  soul  and  the  attri- 
butes of  man,  who  would  not,  as  Dr.  Higbee  expressed  himself  to  Mr.  Beare, 
have  "  kicked  the  author  of  such  outrages  out  of  his  house  ?"  Or  is  there 
any  cold  feeling  of  respect.for  the  office  of  Bjshop,  which  would  have  proi- 
tected  him  frofn  consequences  which  would  have  been  summarily  visited 
upon  any  other  offender,  under  circumstances  of  similar  atrocity  ? 

But  is  it  not,  at  all  events,  a  most  remarkable  thing,  lhat  Mr.  Beare 
should  not  have.manifested  even  so  much  feeling  and  emotion  on  the  subject 
as  to  have  spoken  to  the  Bishop?  One  would  suppose  lhat  the  bursting 
emotions  of  his  heart  would  have  sought  some  vent,  and  that  if  he  had  not 
the  manliness  to  chastise  the  man  who  had  outraged  the  feelings  and  person 

'  of  his  wife,  and  assailed  his  own  hono;-  in  the  tender.est  point,  he  would  at 


181 

least  hare  made  some  effort  to  relieve  his  mind  of  the  pressure  then 
upon  it.     But  what  is  bis  conduct  ? 

Why.  he  teiis  his  wife  to  say  nothing  about  it,  and  to  come  down  and  join 
in  pray  :-rs  :  and  he  actually  compels'the  wife  of  his  bosom,  whose  feelings 
and  person  had  been  outraged  beyond  description,  to  come  down  -and  meet 
the  man  who  had  so  insulted  her.  and  not  only  to  meet  him,  but  to  join  with 
him  in  prayer — a  prayer,  which,  under  such  circumstances,  was  -little  leas 
than  an  insult  and"  mockery  of  the  God  to  whom  it  was  addressed  !  A  more 
particular  narrative  of  the  case  was  made  by  her  to  her  husband,  after  they 
had  retired  for  the  nigb't ;  .but  still,  no  resolution  was  formed  of  different 
conduct  towards  the  Bishop';  and  in  the  morning,  we  find  these  three  persons 
•  seated  at  the  breakfast-table,  in  all1  the  cordiality  of  the  most  unbroken  social 
intercourse  ;  and  after  a-  friendly  parting  with  Mrs.  Bearej  the  Bishop  leaves 
the  house,  and  is  cosily  driven  a  distance  of 'seven  miles,  by  her  husband, 
to  his  place  of  destination.  •  IJow  if  the  husband  was  told  sue,h  a  story  as 
that  n6w  related,  and  believed  tne  one-hundredth  part" of  it,  what  should  we 
expect  of  his  conduct  during  that  ride?  Mr.  Beare  pretends  that  he  was 
silent  all  the. way.  But  if  the  evidence  of  subsequent  witnesses  be  true, 
•he  could  no^  have  been  silent  all  the  way.  But  even  admitting  that  he  was, 
it  only  shows  that  he  could  have  had  "no  wroftgs  of  which  to  complain; 
for  rt  woold  have  been  utterly  impossible  for  him  to  hlave  been  associated  90 
nearly  with  the  man  who"  had.-  if  not  in  fact,  yet  most  assuredly  in  heart, 
.committed  adultery  with  his  wife,  as  Dr.  Higbee'  well  expressed  it,  without 
giving  some  vent  to  his  deep  and  'irrepressible  sense  of  the  insult  and"  the 
wrong. 

This.  then,  is  the  story  of  Mrs.  Beare — the  only  witness  by  whom  these. 
charges  are  sought  to  be  sustained— I  say  the  only  witness,  for-  the  story 
of  Mr.  Beare  is  nothing.  The  corroboration  which  he  gives  adds,  nothing 
to  the  credibility  of  the  story  itself.  He  knew,  personally,  nothing' of  the 
facts  ;  and  he  merely  sustains  his  wife,  by  staling  that  the  story  is  the  same 
as  when  first  fold  to  him.  Their  feelings  and  motives  are  the  same.  Wha: 
their  motives  are  it  rs  impossible  for  us  to  fathom,  and  it  may  be  impossible 
even  to  conjecture  ;  but  that  therje  are  motives,  as  yet  unexplained,  at  work 
in  other  portions  of  this  case,  we  have  most  abundant  evidence.  It  was 
attempted  to  sustain  this  narrative  of  Mrs.  Beare — for  the  learned  Counsel 
felt  the  necessity  of  sustaining  it — by  referring  to  the  evidence -adduced  in 
relation  to  what  oceurred  in  the  Bishop's  study.  On  the  first  occasion  the 
Bishop  was  waited  on  by  three  or  four  of  thq  clergy — ^Drs.  Milnor, 
Muhlenberg,  Wainwright,  and  Higbee.  They  had  heard  ofsome  story, 
and  they  waited  on  the  Bishop  for  the  purpose  of  informing  him  of  certain 
rumors  they  had  beard,  derogatory  to  his  character.  Whether  this  state- 
ment was  made  with  great  clearness,  or  with  great  obscurity,  is  not  very 
apparent  from  the  testimony. .  Some  of  the  witnesses  think  that  it  was  made 
with  great  indefinkeness,  and  thai  Dr.  Muhlenberg  read  from  a  paper  tne 
general  substance  of  the  story.  The  Doctors  recollection  is  noJ  very  dis- 
tinct  as  to  the.  character  of  this  papes,  and  the  other  gentlemen  cannot  give 
any  clear  statement  with  regard,  to  it.  inasmuch  as,  considering  the  whole 
matter  satisfactorily  settled  at  the  time,  they  had  dismissed  it  from  their 
minds,  and  do  not  pretend  to  any  precision  in  their  recollection  of  what 
occurred,  and  much  less  so  with  regard  to  the  language  used  by  a*ny 
party  on  the  occasion.  Now,  I. am  quite  willing  to  take  this  testimony  to- 
gether and  get  a\  the  probable  facts  ;  because,  in  cases  like  this,  we  hav« 


182 

no  alternative  in  the  examination  of  testimony,  given  after  a  long. interval, 
than  to  examine  and  compare,  and  weigh  and  test  its  accuracy 'by  its  pro-, 
bability.  *I  suppose,  and  respectfully  suggest,  that,  this  ought  to  be  the 
course  of  the  Court  on  this  subject!  They  may  have  pr.oce.eded  to  state 
this  accusation,  but  it  is  .clear,  that  they  were  met  by  the  denial  of  the 
Bishop,  for  it  is  human  nature,  we  know,  at.  once  to  deny  a  false  accusa: 
tion,  without  waiting  for  of  dwelling  upon  specifications.  And  I  am  the 
more  confirmed  in  the  belief  that  the  particulars  could  riot  have  been  given 
so  fully,  as  to  have  been  explicitly  denied,-,  because  the  Bishop  wished  to 

.see  Mr.  Beare  himself.  This  desire  was  expressed  at  ah  early  period  in. 
the  interview,  and  affords  strong  ground  for  the  belief  that  there  had  been 
SL  general  statement  9f  the  accusation,  arid. a  general' denial.  The  subject- 
of  an  explanation  must  naturally  have  been  presented  to  the  mind  of  the 
Bishop,  and  probably  suggested  the  interview  with  Mr.  Beare.-  The  strong 
probability  of  this  state  of  facts,  ought  at^ajl  events  to  lead  the  Court  to 
look  very  -narrowly  at  the'  transaction^  and  reconcile  its  apparent  -discre- 
panpies  .by  the  safe  test  of  probability.  It.  is  brought  in  for  the  purpose  of 
making  an  impression  upon  the  Court  as- to  the  inconsistency,  of  the  Bishop 
in  his  declarations  'on  the  first  interview  and  on  the  second.  Qn  the  occa-- 
skm  of  the.  second  interview,  all  the  gentlemen  already  named  were  present, 
with  the  exception  of 'Dr.  Wainwright,  who  was  prevented  by  the  death  of 
one  of  the. members  of  .his  family.  The  moment  Jhat  these  gentlemen  en- 
ter, the  Bishop,  having  anticipated  the  visit. of  Mr.  Beare,-  approaches  him 
with  great  affection  of  manner*  and  with' strong  emotion,  expressing  hkhself 
to  the  effect  that  he  regretted  that  any  thing  had  taken  place  on  his  part 

-that  should  have  occasioned  any  pain,  to  the  feelings,  either  of  Mr.  Beare 
or  of  his  wife.  Some  other  remarks  were  made,  but  immediately  upon  this 
something  is  said  by  Mr.  Beare  on  the  subject  of  the  veracity  of  his  wife, 
but  of  the  precise  character  of  whic.h  we  have  no  definite  information. 
Some  -of  the  witnesses"  think,  that  the  expression  of  Mr.  Beare  was,  "  do 
you  deny  the  statement  made  by  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  or  that  of  Mrs.  .Beare  ?" 
to  which  the  Bishop  replied,  "  I  do  not  desire  to  impute  wilful  falsehood  to 
Mrs.  Beare."  There  is,-however,  an  indistinctness  on  this  subject  amongst 
the  witnesses,  and  I  certainly  do.  not -intend  to  follow  the  Counsel  into  an 
attempt  to  show  that  any  of  these  witnesses  intended  to- misrepresent  the 
matter.  Some  of  them  think  the  expression'  was,  •"  <fo  you  deny  the  state- 
ment of  Mrs.  Beare  ?"  whilst  the  testimony  of  both  Dfs.  Higbee^and  Mil- 
nor  would -s^em  to  show  that  it  was,  "do  you  impeach  the  word  of  Mrs. 
Beare?"  nreaning'.to  put  the  inquiry  \vhidh  was  nearest  to  his  heart,  whether  ' 
the  veracity  of  his  wife  had  been  impeached, 'by  the  remarks  of  (he  Bishop 
on  the  preceding  day.  .  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  infer  that  this  was  the 
.  purport  of  the  remarks,  and  that  th£  reply  of  the  Bishop,  so  far  from  indi- 
cating any  desire  to  escape  from  the  resolute. ground  taken  on  th'e  previous 
day,  was  rather  to  stand  firm"  in  his.  denial,  and  at  the  same  time  to  exhibit 
a  motive  which  was  as  pure  and  benevolent  as  any  that  ever  actuated  hu- 
man conduct — that  of  soothing  the  feelings  of  Mr.  Beare,  instead  of  plant- 
ing in  his  bosom  the  poisoned  arrow  of  an.  impeachment  of  the  veracity  of 
his  wife.-  The  Bishop  might  certainly  have  met  the  subject  with  greater 
severity  of  manner.  But  there  were  kind  relations  subsisting' between  him 
and  this  young  man,  just  entering  Upon  life  under  his  friendly  auspices ;  and 
instead  of  confronting  him,  as  a  more  austere  man  would  have  done,  he 
kindly  and  generously  sinks  his  own  sense  of  the  injustic.0  sought  to  be  in- 


183 

flicted  on  his  character  by  a  false  story,  and  endeavors  to  soothe  the  feel- 
ings of  Mr.  Beare,  whose  great  and  overwhelming  fear" was  .that  the  vera- 
city of  his  wife  had  been  impugned. 

Now  I  ask  whether  the  Court  will  undertake,  out  of  all  this  uncertainty 
of  evidence,  to  impute  falsehood  to  the  Bishop,  or  an  admission  of  this  atro- 
cious charge  ?  I  think,  in  this  dilemma,  the  Court  will  have  but  little  hesi- 
tation in  discerning  the  alternative  to  which  justice  and  reason  point. 
They  will  put  that  construction  on  the  testimony  which  is  most  consistent 
with  the  purity  of  the  Bishop,  and  his  personal  character,  and  with  the 
probabilities  of  the  whole  case  itself.  •  It  just  riow  occurs  to  me,  moreover, 
that  it  is  most  conclusive  that  the  Bishop  did  not  intend  to  make  the  ad- 
mission in  the  second  interview,  which  the  opposite  counsel  will  endeavor 
to  show  that  he  did,  inasmuch  as  if  he  had,  the  fact  would  have  been  rec- 
ollected by  all  the  witnesses  present,  with  still  more  distinctness  than  the 
language  used  by  him  on  the  preceding  day. 

But  there  is  a  feature  connected  with  this  case,  to  which  I  beg  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Court,  and  which  is  as  much  a  matter  of  legal  conclusion, 
as  it  is  perhaps  more  appropriately  within  the  spiritual  capacity  in  which 
the  Court  are  to'determine  this  case.  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  testi- 
mony of  all  the  witnesses  who  accompanied  Mr.  Beare,  concurs  in  this— 
that  he  and  the  Bis*hop  and  the  parties  separated  with  feelings  of  strong 
arid  of  kind  emotion  ;  arid  that  the  Bishop  gave  vent  to  his  feelings  in 
tears ;  and  finally,  the  very  instant  they  left  the  house,  spontaneously,  and 
as  all  the  witnesses  agree,  without  one  word  being  said  in  suggestion  of 
the  subject — speaking  from  their  hearts  and  judgments — they  arrived  at  the 
conclusion,  and  expressed  the  determination,  that  the  matter  ought  to  rest 
\yhere  it  was,  and  that  nothing  further  was  to  be  said  about.it.  Now  I  ask 
this  venerable  Court  if  they  even  believe  that  some  indiscretion,  on  the  part 
of  the  Bishop 'had  been,  made  apparent — not  to  the  extent  alleged  by  Mrs. 
Beare,  for  I  would  not  insult  ihe  understanding  of  the  Court  by  calling 
that  an  indiscretion — but  that  some  indiscretion  had  appeared,  and  that  on 
the  exhibition  on  his  part  of  this  kind  and  Christian  feeling,  these  rever- 
end gentlemen,  some  of  them  his  seniors  in  point  of  years,  were  satisfied 
that  he  was  innocent,  as  they  jnust  "have  been,  or  they-  would  not  have  ar- 
rived at  the  conclusion -that  the  matter  ought  to  be  for  ever  set  at  re.st ; — I 
ask  this  Court  whether,  under  thes'e  circumstances,  the  admonition  admin- 
istered to 'the  Bishop  by  Dr.  Milnor,  ought  not  to  be  deemed  sufficient,  and 
whether  he  should  not  now  receive  an  honorable  acquittal  ?  I  put  it  to 
this  Court,  that  in  relation  to-this  last  charge,  which  has  been^hunted  up 
against  the  Respondent — his.  subsequent  life — above  reproach  and  above 
suspicion,  ought  to  be  admitted  as  a  sufficient  .exculpation  for  any  mere  in- 
discretion which  may  have  been  alleged;  and,  I  ask,  whether  the  admoni- 
tion extended  by  Dr.  Milnor,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  other  reverend 
gentlemen,  is  not  all  the  discipline  which,  such  a  case  demanded'? 

Is  there  in  that  Church  which  you  represent,  no  principle  of  Christian 
forgiveness  ?  Is  it  possible  that  you'sit  here  as  inquisitors — that  years  af- 
ter the  transactions  have  occurred,  and  attaching  the  very  worst  motives  to 
acts  which  were  reviewed  at  the  time,  and  after  the  best  possible  fruits 
have  resulted  from  the  discipline  then  administered,  you  are  still  to  exer- 
cise the. stern  office  of  the  judge,  and  inflict  punishment  in  the  face  of  re- 
pentance ? 

I  well  recollect  an  eastern  allegory,. which,  as  exemplifying  the  beauty 


184 

i ••         /»         /•  >  i        • "  i  f^\   • 

of  that  great  object  of  our  faith^sincere  and  Christian  repentance — struck 

me  in  my  youth  as  most  glowingly  describing  the  divinest  attribute  of  our 
holy  religion — the  forgiveness  of  a  repentant  sinner. 

A  fallen  angel  is  represented  as  imploring  re-admission  into  Paradise. 
The  prayer  is  granted,  upon  the  condition  of  presenting  at  that  gate  "  the 
gift  that  is  most  dear  to  Heaven."  Buoyant  with  hope,  she  goes  forth  in 
pursuit  of  the  precious  offering.  She  finds,  and  ever  and  anon,  presents 
the  purest  emblems  of  all  that  is  holy  in  the  sensibilities  of  the  human 
heart — but  she  is  again  and  again  rejected.  Undismayed,  yet  desponding, 
she  continues  her  pursuit ;  and  in  her  wanderings,  her  eye  falls  upon  a 
child  at  prayer — near  him  a  man  hardened  with  the  guilt  of  years — seared 
with  crime — eagerly  intent  upon  the  artless  child— his  eye  moistened  by 
a  tear — and  at  length  falling  upon  his  knees  in  prayer.  She  catches  the 
precious  tear,  return's  with  it  in -a  transport  of  joy,  arid  receives  the  prom- 
ised boon  so  long  sought,  and  so  long  deferred.  May  I  not  then  exclaim, 
in  the  beautiful  language  of  the  poet, 

"  Oh  !  is  it  not  thus  : 

That  the  precious  tears  of  repentance  fall? 
Though  foul  his  very  plagues  within, 

One  heavenly  tear  hath'dispell'd  them  all.    • 
And  hymns  of  joy  proclaim  through  heaven,  • 
The  triumph  of  a  soul  forgiven." 
• 

But  I  do  not  admit  that  the  alleged  charge  .against  the  Respondent  has 
been  in  any  degree  sustained.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Bearc  is 
shaken  in. every  material  point  by  the  strong  improbabilities  which  we  have 
introduced  as  attending  the  circumstances  under  which  it  is  brought  for- 
ward ;  and  •  surely  if  there  be  any  foundation  in  truth  for  the  comments 
which  I  have'  made  in  relation  to  the  evidence  of  the  other  witnesses, 
they  certainly  have  tenfold"  force  when  applied'  to  this  lady  and  her  hus- 
band. Suppose  Mr.  Beare  willing,  for  the  sake  of  the. Church,  to  allow 
the  Bishop  to  pass  out  of  his  house  without  any  expression  .of  indignation, 
is  it  to  be  believed,  that  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  he  would  have  sought 
the  Bishop  for  the  'purpose  of  extending  to  him  again  the  hospitalities  of 
his  house,  and  have  almost  prostituted  the  person  'of  his  wife  by  again 
placing  her  in  his  presence  ?  And  yet  what  are  the  facts  ?  "We  have, 
on  this  subject,  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Schroeder,  who  swears  to  an 
interview,  in  relation  to  which  there  can  be  no  mistake.  EJither  Dr. 
Schroeder  il  perjured,  or  the  account  of  that  interview  is  true.  The  Coun- 
sel on  the  opposite  side  seemed  to  wonder  that  the  Doctor's  memory  was 
so  precise  and  accurate  with -regard  to  matters  which,  as  they  suppose, 
could  not  have  particularly  arrested  his  attention  at  that  time.  Doubtless 
some  of  the  members  of  the  Court  are  personally  acquainted  with  that  gen- 
tleman ;  and  if  so,  to  them  I  appeal  for  the  fact,  that  his  retentiveness  and 
clearness  of  memory  constitutes  one  of  the  most  remarkable  peculiarities 
of  his  character.  But  he  states  a  reason  why  he  could  not  have  forgotten 
the  facts,  which  cannot  but  commend  itself  to  the  judgment  of  every  sound 
mind.  •"  If  there  had  been  any  want  of  cordiality,"  says  he,  "  on  the  part 
of  Mrs.  Beare  towards  the  Bishop,  I  could  not  but'  have  noticed  it,  for  the 
Bishop  always  spoke  kindly  of  her  an'd  her  husband;"  and  therefore,  and 
for  the  additional  reason,  that  a  circumstance  occurred,  as  he  states,  the' 
next  day,  to  fix  the  facts  in  his  memory — he  swears  positively,  that  on  the 


occasion  when  the  Bishop  was  invited  to  dinner  by  Mr.  Beare,  the  invita- 
tion  was  pressed  upon  him,  although  he  pleaded  a  prior  engagement ;  and 
that  Mrs.  Beare  "was  present,  and  enforced  the  invitation,  in  manner  at 
least,  if  not  in  language.  Now,  if  there  were  but  that  one  fact  in  the  case, 
in  answer  to  this  charge — that  after  the  Bishop  had  actually  pleaded  a 
former  engagement  as  an  excuse  for  not  accepting  that  extended  by  Mr. 
Beare,  the  latter  still  insisted  on  the  Bishop  accepting  it,  and  finally 
prevailed  on  him  to  do  so — it  would  of  itself  contradict  as  fully  and  as 
strongly  every  thing  testified  to  in  relation  to  the  outrage  alleged  in  the 
case  of  Mrs.  Beare,  as  if  a  dozen  witnesses  had,  in  terms,  contradicted  her 
whole  statement.  Can  any  man  'for  a  moment  reconcile  the  facts  sworn 
to  by  Dr.  Schroeder,  at  this  interview,  with  the  feelings  which  must  have 
existed  between  the  parties,  had  the  story  of  Mrs.  Beare  been  true  ? 

I  would  here  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  what  most  forcibly  im- 
pressed itself  on  me,  that  in  no  single  answer  which  she  gave  to.  a  great 
variety  of  questions-,  did  Mrs.  Beare  admit,  that,  from  the  time  of  that  insult, 
upon  the  occasion  of  all  or  any  of  her  meetings  with  the  Bishop,  she  had 
ever  exchanged  a  word  with  him.  Thus,  for  instance,  at  the  dinner  at  her  ' 
own  house  a  year  after,  she  gave  it  to  be  understood,  that  she  had  merely 
handed  the  dishes  to  him  at  the  table,  but  without  addressing  to  him  a  single 
word ;  and  yet  how  differently  has  the  fact  been  represented  by  the  other 
witnesses,  and  how,  in  this  as  in  other  particulars,  has  her  story  been 
contradicted  by  the  evidence  of  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Goodwin  and  Sweetzer, 
showing  the  existence  of  such  a  state  of  feeling  between  the  parties  as  was 
not  only  improbable  but  absolutely  impossible,  on  the  supposition  that  the 
alleged  outrages  had  been  perpetrated.  Their  meeting  at  church  the  next 
morning,  after  the  interview  at  Dr.  Schroeder's,  was-  proved  by  those  rev- 
erend gentlemen  to  have  been  cordial  and  friendly.  The  manner  of  Mrs. 
Beare  at  the  table  'was  of  the  same  character.  There  is  no  attempt  to  con- 
tradict this  most  material  fact.  If  it  had  been  possible  to  contradict  it  they 
could  easily  Jiave  done  so.  Their 'brother,  their  mother,  and  other  friends  were 
present  at  that  dinner.  Can  there  then  be  any  mistake  or  doubt  about  this 
fact  ?  In  the  evening,  at  Mr.  Franklin's,  we  have  proved  that  the  social 
intercourse  between  the  parties  was  equally  friendly  and  cordial.  Mrs. 
Franklin  and  Mr.  Smythe  testify,  that  they  did  'not  observe  any  thing,  in. 
manner  or  act,  to  interrupt  in  the  slightest  degree  the  harmony  that  pre- 
vailed, which,  if  it  had  occurred,  they  must  have  observed. 

Now  it  is  not  human  nature  that  this  state  of  things  could  have  existed, 
and  yet  that  the  story  told  by  Mr.  and^Mrs.  Beare  is 'true.  We  have  the 
testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goodwin  bearing  on  the  same  point. .  That 
gentleman  met  Mr.  Beare,  in  a-stcamboat  coming  from  Flushing,  long  after 
the  alleged  occurrences,  and  seeing  the  latter  reading  the  Protestant  Church- 
man, he  made  some  remark  to  him,  to  which  Mr.  Beare  replied.,  speaking 
in  terms  of  the  greatest  esteem  for  the  Bishop,  and  expressing  a  hope  that 
his  taking  that  paper  would  not  be  construed  into  any  feeling  of  unkindness 
or  unfriendliness  towards  the  Bishop— a  circumstance  slight  in  itself  it  is 
true,  but  of  importance  when  viewed  as  throwing  light  on  the  great  ques- 
tion in  this  case — the  motives  by  which  the  parties  were  actuated,  and  the 
state  of  feeling  existing  between  them.  Then  we  have  produced  Mr.  Foyer, 
a  colored  man  of  respectability  and  a  communicant  of  this  church,  who 
testified  that  on  several  occasions,  after  the  alleged  aggressions,  when  in 
his  shop,  which  is  very  much  frequented  by  clergymen  of  the  Episcopal 

'    24 


Church,  Mr»  Beare  expressed  himself  concerning  the  Bishop  in  such  a 
manner  as  indicated  the  existence  of  .the -most  cordial  and.  friendly  feelings 
towards  him. 

Having  thus  reviewed  the  evidence  as  applicable  to  the  cases  of  Mrs. 
Beare  and  the  Misses  Rudderow,  I  put  .to  the  Court,  then,  this  emphatic 
question — have  we  not  furnished  the  only  explanation  fhat,  consistently 
with  the  most  perfect  innocence,  could  have  been  looked  for  or  expected  ? 
An  explanation  going  far  beyond  what,  in  one  of  the  cases  cited  to  the 
Court,  is  regarded  as  an  abundant  defence,  to  charges  preferred  years  after 
the  alleged  facts  have  occurred.  Of  the.  case  of  Mrs.  Butler  it  is  hardly 
necessary 'to  speak  ;  for  after  eight  years,  what  explanation  could  be  fur- 
nished, or  even  expected  or  required,  beyond  what  the  improbability  of  the 
story  carries  with  it?  In  that  case,  too,  we' were  kept-- altogether  in  the 
dark  with  respect  to  the  name  of  the  person  who  was  driving  the  carriage; 
and  at  this  length  of  time' it  is  absurd,  nay,  I  may  almost  say  wicked,  to 
hold  the  Respondent  rigidly  to  the  disproof  or  explanation  of  circumstances, 
.  which  could  not  possibly  have  left  any  impression  on  his  mind,  and  re- 
specting which,  from  mere  lapse  of  time,  no  explanation  could  be  given. 

But  it  may  be  said — and  it  will  undoubtedly  be  said-*— by  the  .Counsel  on 
the  other  side,  that  these  witnesses  have  not  wilfully  perjured  themselves  ; 
and  that  the  Court  cannot  come  to  such  a  conclusion  by  any.  fair  or  legiti- 
mate reasoning  from  the  evidence  in  the  case.  There  is  no  necessity  for 
such  a  conclusion,  or  for  such  an  explanation  of  the  glaring  contradictions 
which  I  have  established.  These  matters,  it  seems,  have  -been  the  subject 
of  gossip,  in  the  different  neighborhoods  where  they  had  their  origin.  These 
stories  have  been  communicated,  over  and  over,'  by  the  parties  to  their  con- 
fidential friends.  Within  the  last  six  or  eight  weeks,  it  "has  become  impor- 
tant to  certain  parties,  that  the  Respondent  should  be  destroyed  ;  and  emis- 
saries have  been  sent  to  these  neighborhoods ;  they  have  sought  out  the 
authors  of  these  stories ;  and,  without  imputing  any  extreme  corruption  to 
them,  it  is  sufficient  to  believe  that  they  have  been  led  to  regard"  themselves 
as  in  a  position  in  which  they  were  required,  either  to  sustain  their  stories, 
or  to. stand  convicted  as  slanderers  of  the  accused.  One  thing  is  certain — 
that  until  the  cloud  began  to  gather  around  the  head  of  the  Respondent, 
during  the  sitting  of  the  late  General  Convention,  all  these  virtuous  feel- 
ings, which  have  been  slumbering  for  seven  or  eight  years  in  one  case — •• 
and  for  two  years  and  a  half  in  the  most  recent  one,  would  have  continued 
to  sleep,-  had  they  not  been  waked  up  for  purposes,  which  I  am,  perhaps, 
not  at  liberty  to  impute  ;  and  which  I  certainly  will .  not  travel  out  of  the 
testimony  to  expose.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  some  busy-bodies  have 
been  at  work  in  the  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  crushing  the  Respondent ; - 
and  have  been  used  by  others  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  design  into 
effect.  I  call,  then,  upon  this  venerable  Court,  as  they  would  guard  the 
purity  of  this  Church,  and  preserve  its  discipline  from  prostitution  for  the 
basest  purposes,  to  look  at  the  motives  which  are  apparent  in  this  prosecu- . 
tion ;  and  to  resolve  that  the  force  of  their  high  authority,  as  wielded  by 
this  body,  shall  not^be  perverted  to  the  accomplishment  of  such  unhallowed 
purposes. 

I  will  not  longer  detain  the  Court,  by  reviewing  at  greater  length  the  facts 
of  this  case,  or  the  principles  which  it  involves  ;  but  will  leave  to  my 
learned  associate  to  enforce  with  much  greater  power  than  L  can  employ, 
such  views  of  the  case  as  he  is  so  well  able  to  p*resent.  I  have  thus  at- 


187  . 

tempted,  with  great  feebleness,  I  am  sensible,  to  discharge  the  duty  which 
I  have  felt  to  be  imposed  upon  me  on  this  occasion.  The  solemn'  and  mo- 
mentous duty  which-  rests  upon  the  Court,  does  not  demand  any  enforce- 
ment from  me.  It  is, 'I  am  well  aware, .reajized  in  all  its. magnitude  and 
interest,  by  every  member  of  this  venerable  tribunal.  But,  in  conclusion, 
I  will  say,  that  believing,  as  I  do,  in  the  entire  innocence  of  the  accused,  I 
confidently  call  upon  you  to  render,  him  a  prompt  and  speedy  deliverance. 
But  ifj  in  the  mists  of  exaggeration  and  contradiction,  to  say  the  least  of  it, 
which  surround  the  case,  you  discover — which  I  cannot — any  thing  indica- . 
ting  indiscretion  on  the. part  of  the  accused,  but,  free  from  the  taint  of 
moral  impurity,  remembering  how  deeply  he  has  already  suffered  .  and 
atoned,  I  conjure  you  by  the  sacred  vow  under. which  you  act — by  that 
religion,  whose  ministers  and  fathers  on  earth  you  are — I  conjure  you — L 
trust  without  irreverence,  by  the  holy  name  of  the  God  whom  you  adore — 
"  attach  crime  to  the  intention,  aYid  to  nothing  else— absolve  the  innocent 
in  heart— and  when  you  return  to  this  -bar  with  your  judgment,  say  to  my 
cliqnt,  in  the  blessed  words  of  the  redeeming  Son  of  that  God- :  '<  Go,  and 
sip' no  more!' '  ' 

.  The  Court  then  adjourned  to  meet  at" .7  o'clock,  P.  M. 

.  Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM, '  Clerk. 


Tuesday,  December  31st,  1844, 
Seven  o'clock,  P.  M. 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, Connecticut,  Nopth  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky^  Ohio,  New  Jersey, 
the  N6rth  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York, 
South  Carolina,'  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  -and  the  "Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and -the  South 
Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers.  .  .  .  . 

GERARDUS  CLARKE,  Esq.,  commenced  the  summing  up  of  evidence 
on  the  part  of  the  Presentment 

May  it  please  (he  Court : — At  this  protracted  stage  of  the  investigation, 
it  may  be  some'  gratification  to.  the  Court  to  learn,  that  in  the  remarks 
which  I  intend  to  submit 'to  .therp,  I  hope  to  occupy  W  a  small  portion  of 
their  time,  compared  with  that  which  has  been .  consumed  by  the  learned 
Counsel  who  hag  preceded  me.  The  demand  made  upon,  him  and  .upon 
myself  is  essentially  different.  He  had  a  defence  to  project  and  to  sustain, 
without  facts  .to  aid  him.  1  am  called  upon  .to  sustain  a  charge  upon 
facts,  and  hence  my  task  is  far  more  simple  and  direct. 

Under  whatever  aspect  this  case  may.be  viewed,  however,  it  cannot  be 

'denied  that  it  has  devolved  both  upon  the  Court  and  upon  the  Counsel  a  duty 

of  the  most  painful  and  extraordinary  character.  •  To  my  learned  associate 

and  nfiyself  has  been  assigned  the  -unwfel come  task  of  presenting  for  your 


188 

consideration  and  judgment,  certain  charges  'affecting  "most  deeply  the 
moral  character  and  ofiicial  standing  of  one  of  your  own  order"— kflie  of  the 
fathers  of  that  Church  which  I  have 'ever  been  accustomed  to  venerate  and' 
love.  Yours  is  the  still  more  solemn  and  responsible  duty  of  receiving 
these  charges,,  of.  ascertaining' their  truth  or  falsity,  and  of  pronouncing' 
judgment  upon  them,  uninfluenced  by  prejudice  or  partiality — without 
fear,  favor,  or  affection. 

On  an  occasion  so  entirely  novel — in  a  matter  <5f  such  solemn  import, 
who  of  us  can  say  that  .he  does  not  feel  a  degree  of  responsibility  alto.- 
gether  unusual  in  the  trial  of  causes  ?  Who  is  there  that  can  say  that  he 
has  not  felt,  during  the  progress  of  this  investigation,  emotions  of  the  most 
painful  and  melancholy  character  ?  As  to  myself,. although'  net  altogether 
unaccustomed  to  address  judicial  tribunals.  I  can'sarfely  say.  that  I  never 
rose  to  perform  such  a.  duty  under,  greater  embarrassment  than  that  which 
I  now  feel ; — -an  embarrassment  not  arising  from  any  doubt  in  piy  own 
mind  as  to  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  the  course  pursued  in,  this  case, 
but  solely  from  the  importance  of  the  investigation  itself — important  to  the 
distinguished  party  accused,  to  the  Church,  and  to  religion  at  large.  .  And 
selected  though'  I  may  have  been,  to  take  a  part  in  this  investigation,  prob- 
ably with  stmie  reference  to  niy  profession,  I  yet  can.  assVire  you  that  I 
have  felt  nothing  of  that  partisan  zeal  or  ambition  which  usually  in- 
fluences a  lawyer  in- the  performance  of  professional  duty.  I  have  felt 
ne  vehement  desire  for  victory,  in  the. usual  sense  of  that  term.  Victory  ! 
.what  is  a  victory  in  this  case-  to  the  cause  which- 1  am* called  on  to  sus- . 
tain  ?  To  sustain  these  charges  js  '  to  overwhelm  with  'disgrace)  one 
under  whose  episcopal  supervision  T  have  passed  no  inconsiderable  portion 
of  my  life — rone  whom  I  have  been  acpustomed  •  to  respect  as  the  head  of 
•  the  Church  in  the  Diocese  in  which  my  lot  has  been  fixed— one  who  has 
recently  performed  the  solemn  rite  of  Confirmation  on  my  only  daughter 
— one  at  whose  hands  I  have. mysejf  repeatedly  joined  in  the  most  solemn 
offices  of  our'  religion !  •  Think  you.  then,  Rt.  Rev,  .Fathers,  that  in  the 
performance  of  the  duty  assigned  me  on  this  occasion,  I  .can  be  actuated 
•by  any  paltry  personal  motive  of  ambition  for  victory  ?  or  that  I  can  be 
influenced  by  any  hostility  towards  the  distinguished  party  accused?  or 
entertain  arty  other  sentiments  than  those  of  deep  sorrow  and.  mortification.? 
I  entirely  disclaim  and  disavow  arny  other  desire  than  that  truth '  an3' 
justice  may-prevail.  , 

On- the  other  hand,  however,  if  the  accused  party  be  guilty  of  the 
charges,  and 'he  should  yet  gain  a  victory  on  this  occasion — a  victory  by 
a  judgment  of  acquittal  at  your  hands  $  then  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  a 
deeper  wound  will  be  inflicted  on  that  Church,  which  is  an  object  of  vene- 
ration and  love  to  us  all,  than  has  yet  been-  suffered  by  her  from  any  other 
cause,  at  Uny  period  of  her  history  in  this  .country. 

I  regret  much  that  aay  remarks  have  fallen  from  .any  one,  during  the 
progress  of  this  investigation,  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  these  proceedings'; ; 
and  that  any  insinuations  should  have  been  made,  in  any 'quarter,  relatrveJ 
to  a  conspiracy  ;  or  that  the  charges  have  been  preferred  out  of  any  other 
motive  than  that  of  a  consciqntious  feeling  of  duty,  on. the  part  of  those 
who  have  preferred  them.     Such  insinuations'  I  know  to  be.  utterly  un- 
founded in  fact;   and  I  entirely  disavow'and  deny  that  any  thing  has  been 
connected  with  the  investigation  that  is  not  apparent  to  all..    The  learnejJ 
Counsel  who  has  preceded1  me,  has  insinuated1 — and  indeed;  from  interrog- 


atories  put  during  the  progress  oT  this  trial,  it  was  very  evident  thjtt.an- 
impression  of  that  character  has  been,  studiously  attempted  to  be  made — 
thai  this  trial  had  been  got  up  by  enemies  of  the- Bishop..  It  -is  not  so. 
.We  stand  here  prepared  (expecting,  from  what  had  been  said  in  the  public 
•prints,  that  an  attempt,  would  be  made  to  produce  the  impression  that  the 
trial  was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy)  to  show,  that  no'  ground  whatever  ex- 
isted for  such  a  charge.  "We  had  a  witness  in.  readiness  to  prove  that  the 
surmise  was  entirely  groundless.  We  could  have  shown'  the  origin  and 
progress  of.  this  investigation  up  to  the  moment  it  was  brought  before  this 
Court.  But  .there  was  no  opportunity  afforded  for  our  producing  the  wit- 
ness, as  not  a  particle  of  proof  was  offered  to  lead  us  into  that  inquiry, 
and  therefore  we  were  forced  to  dispense  with  his  examination! 

But  from -\vhaf  has-  already  appeared— from  the  letter  produced  by  Dr. 
Milnor,  it  must  be. evident  to  all  how  this  matter  .originated  ; — that  it  had 
Us  origin  .in  another  State,  and  with  gentlemen  belonging  to  a  Southern 
Diocese — with" those  who  had  nothing  whatever  Jo'  do  wjth  the  'controver- 
sies or  the  difficulties  which  have  prevailed  in  this  Diocese.  'That  fact 
must  bo,  I  think,  apparent  to  all  the  members  of  the  Court. .  It  took  a  def- 
inite shap?,  undoubtedly,  during-  the  session  of  the  late  General  Conven- 
tion, arid  from  circumstances  w.hich  transpired  there  ;  although  a' determi- 
nation that  an  inquiry  should  be  made  had  been  previously  formed.  It  is 
well,  Lknown  tp  every  member  of  this-  Court,  that  a  memorial  was  presented 
to  the  House  of  Bishops,'  embracing  the  substance  of  the  present  charges : 
'an  inquiry  was  thought,  necessary,  and  an  in'quiry  .was  set.  on  foot  which 
resulted  in  the  necessity  of  this  presentment.  That  painful  duty  devolved 
xm  the/three  "Rt.  Rev. 'gentlemen  who  appear  ag  the  Presenters  in  this  . 
case — who  having,  amidst  great  anxiety  of  mind,  but  with  perfect  con- ' 
sciousness  of  the  purity  of  their  motives,  discharged  their  duty,  now  call  on . 
you  for  the  performance  of  yours. 

In  the  consideration  of  the  subject  before  the  Court,  I  shall  view  it  in 
reference  to  two  points  :  first,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  offences  with  which 
tne  accused  party  is  charged;  and  secondly,  as  to  the  proof  brought  to 
sustain  the  'accusation, 

.  It  is  true  that  no  crime,  in  the  usual  acceptation  of  the  term,  is  charged 
upon  the  accused- party.  But  in  a.  moral  point  of  view,  and  with -regard 
to  the  sacred"  office  which  he  holds,  and  in  the  eye  of 'Almighty  God,  very 
serious  crimes  are' imputed  to  him  ;  and  if  he  be  guilty  in  any  one  of  the 
particulars  charged  in  this  'presentment,  then  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  thai  he 
has  fallen  from  his  high  estate — disgraced .  the  office- which  he  holds  as  an 
ambassador  of  Jesus  Christ — and  inflicted  a  deep  and  lasting  wound  'upon 
that  Church  whose  dearest  interests  were  in  part  committed  to  his  care. 

What,  may  it  .please  the  Court,  is  a  Bishop  1     What  -are  the  duties  he  ' 
assumes — what  are  the  qualifications  required  of  him.?     In  the  language 
of  a  great  moral  poet  concerning  what'  a  Minister  of  the.'Gospel  ought  to 
be,  I  would  say — 

'.'  That  were  I  to  describe  a  BisJuip,  such  as  Paul, .    . 
Were  he  on  earth,  would  hear,  approve,  and  own, 
Paul  should  himself  direct. me — I  would- trace 
His  master  strokes,. and  'draw  from  his  design ; 
I  would  express  bim,  siinple,  grave,  sincere — 
In  doctrine  qncorrupt,  in  language  plain, 
.'    And  plain  in  manner— decent,' Solemn,  chaste." 


'.  -.-  In  the  Epistle  of  that  great 'Apostle  \o  Timothy,  .which  iornis  a  part  of 
the  Corisecratien  Service  of  qur  Church,  the  qualifications  and  character 
of  a  Bishop  are  distinctly  marked  out. '  1  Timothy  iii.  2—7'.  *'  A. Bishop1 
must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wifer  vigilant^  sober,  of  good. beha- 
vior, given  tp  hospitality,  apt  to -teach;  not  given  to  irine,  no  striker^  not- 
greedy  of  filthy  lucre;  but  patient  j  not  a -brawler^  not  covetous.;  one  that 
ruleth  well  his  own  house>. having  his  ch.ildren*  ih  subjection  with  all 'grav- 
ity;  (for1  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own"  house,-  how  shall  he  take 

.  care -of  the  Church  of  God  ?)  hot  a  novice,  lest  being  lifted  up  'with,  pride 
he  fall  injo  the. -condemnation  of  the- devil.'  Moreover,  he  must  have  a- 
good  report  of  them .. which  are  without;  lest,  he  fall  intQ  reproach  and  (h& 
sufife  of  the  deviL"t  -In  the  Epistle  of  the  same-Apostle  to  Titus  a  similar 
description  of  the  qualifications  qf  a  Bishop  is  presented,  and  in  -the  Con- 
secration vow  imposed  by  the  Ritual  of  our' Church,  ihe  party  consecrated 
promises  obedience  and  conformity  tp -this 'doctrine  ;  aed  he,,  moreover, 
.promises  that  he  will  "  deny  all  ungodliness  and  u-orldly  lusts. -and  live  so-, 
berly,  righteously,  and  godly  .in.  this' present  evil  world  ;  that' he  .may  shofc 
himself  in. all  things  an  example  of  good-works  unto  others,  that .the  adversary 
-rrtay  be  ashamed,  having  nothing  to -say  against  him."  . .  *O 

I  read*  these  "passages,  although  they 'are  of  course,  perfectly,  familiar  to 
you,  in*  order  that  it  may  be  distinctly  -seen  \yhat  is  the  fiature  pf  the  -issue 
tp  be  tried  in  this  case..  The  object  of,  the  present  -.investigation'  is  to  as- 
certain whethe*  Ihis"  solemn  vow,  has  been  violated  by- "the  accused' party, 
and  to  such  a  degree  as. to  cadi',  for  the 'judicial  interference. of  the  highest 
authority  of  the  Church.  . 

•  .*  What,;then,  is  the  nature!  of  "the  charge . preferred  against  'the  acjcused  * 

•  It  is — :as  the  Counsel  preceding  me  has  well  s^tid — ;it  js  the  charge  of  im- 
morality .and  impurity, — immorality  of  the  most  debasing  character,  and 

'  totally  inco.nsistentiwith  tke  existence  of  true  religion  i  hi  the  heart.     If 'the 

•charges  are  true,  yrhai  do  they  show  ?  -'Why,  that  although  Bishop  Onder: 

dorik  has,  through  a  period  of  six  or  seven  years,,  perforrned  all  his  -official 

'  .»  duties. with  perfect  regularity,  yet  •  that  h^  has  durkig  tha  whole  of  that 

period,,  and.  in- the. midst  of  hjs.' official  acts,  been  guilty  of  indulging  the 

most  -licentious  and  debasing  passions  ;  .that  at  the  same  moment  -that  he 

was  calling  on  his  flock,  to  forsake  the  evil  of  their  ways-r-to  resist  the  evil 

•  propensities  of  their  nature— to  repent- and  be  forgiven-r— he  was  continually 
.yielding;  to  those  propensities  in  himself,  exhibiting  the 'worst  possible  ex- 
ample,, a&d  endeavoring  to  corrupt  individual  mefnbers  of  his  flock-.    -They 
show  that.in  every,  instance  specified  in  .the  Presentment,  he  was  guilty  of 
adultery  in  his  heart. .    And  what  were  the  occasions. selected,  for  .the  per- 
petration of  those  acts  which  presented  the-  lamentable  'evidence .of  the-ex- 

•  istence-of  these  unhallowed  emotions  and  propensities.?     Why,  in -the  case 
of  Mrs.  Butler^  embracing  the  first  and  second  specifications,  :he  was  ori  his. 

.  way  to  perform'the  solemn;  ofiice  -of  ordination  on  be? '  husban'd.  In  ,  the 
case  narrated  by  Mr.  Bolles,-  he  was  about  proceeding  to  the'  Convention  of 
his  Diocese,  to  deliberate  iip9n  high'  and  'solemn  duties':  '  In  the  c&se  of  the 
Misses  Rudderow,  he'w.as  proceedingi  on .  a  Sabbath- from  the  house  of  God 
to  the  dwelling  in'  \yuich  he  was  to  be  an  'horjo/ed  'gQest.-  In  tiie  case  of 

•  Mrs.  Beare,  he  had  just  performed  the  solemn  rite  of  Confirmation,  and.  was 
.returning  from  the  sanctuary  t6  the  house  of  his  friend;  whose  wife  was  the 
'object  of  his,assault,^-showing  thereby-  that  "no^d'uties,  however  solemn— no 

places,  however  sacr,ed-*-no  times,'  however  holy— no  persons,  however  -en- 


191 

titled  to  his  respect — were  sufficient  to  restrain  his  libidinous  propensities. 
But  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  dwell  on  the  nature  of  these  offences.  The 
Counsel  on  the  other  side  has  conceded  that  the  charges  are  of  a  very  ag- 
gravated character,  and  that,  if  they  be  true,  they  constitute  a  case  against 
the  accused  which  shows  that  he  is  entirely  disqualified  for  the  sacred  office 
he  holds.  It  is,  therefore,  entirely  unnecessary  for  me  to  detain  you  by  any 
further  remarks  on  this  point,  and. I  shall  proceed  at  once  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  second  point,  which  has  reference  to  the  nature  of  the 
proof  brought  in  support  of  this  accusation. 

The  first  case  contained  in  the  Presentment,  is  that  of  Mrs.  Butler  ;  and 
before  I  proceed  to  the  examination  of  it,  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Court  to  s.ome  points  submitted  by  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side. 

First,  in  regard  to  the  number  of  witnesses.  The  Counsel  supposes  that 
these  charges  must  in  every  instance  be  sustained  by  two  witnesses,  or  else 
they  fall  ;  and  he  calls  upon  this  Court  to  say,  by  their  verdict,  that  unless 
in  every  case  the  charges  are  sustained  by  two  witnesses,  the  Presentment 
entirely  falls  to  the  ground,  as  unsupported  by  proof.  For  the  purpose  of 
maintaining  this  position,  he  appeals  first  to  the  Jewish  law,  and  secondly 
to  the  law  as  laid  down  by  our  Saviour,  in  different  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  referring  to  the  Jewish  law.  Now  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
which  he  derives  from  the  Jewish  law,  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  dwell 
long  upon  it.  It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  according  to  the  Jewish  law, 
certain  crimes  could  not  be  established  unless  upon  the  evidence  of  at  least 
two  witnesses  ;  but  I  wholly  deny  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  which  recognises  that  rule  of  the  old  Mosaic 
code.  The  Counsel  has  indeed  referred  us  to  Matthew  xviii.  15,  16,  and 
17.  But  I  ask,  does  that  passage  contain  a  recognition  of  the  Jewish  doc- 
trine as  stated  in  Deuteronomy  ?  Certainly  not.  The  words  are,  "  If  thy 
brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  tell  him  his  fault  between  him  and 
thee  alone  :  if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother  ;  but  if  he 
will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth 
of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be  established."  Now  who  is  the 
witness  of  the  fact  in  this  case  ?  The'  party  who  makes  the  complaint,  and 
he  only  ;  and  in  case  the  trespasser  refuses  to  listen  to  him,  he  is  enjoined 
to  take  with  him  two  or  more  witnesses,  before  whom  the  charge  may  be 
made.  They  are  to  be  .the  witnesses  of  the  accusation,  not  of.  the  fact. 
The  party  who  suffered  the  wrong,  is  the  accuser,  and  the  others  are  the 
witnesses  of  the  accusation.  The  same  explanation  is  applicable  to 
1  Tim.  v.  19.  But  I  defy  the  gentleman  to  show  any  passage  in  the 
New  Testament  which  recognises  the  doctrine,  that  a  charge  cannot  be 
sustained  unless  there  are  two  or  three .  witnesses  to  the  fact.  There  is 
no  such  doctrine  to  be  derived  from  the  New  Testament.  But  the  Counsel 
cited  another  passage — John  viii.  17  and  18.  Now  does  the  Counsel 
really  intend  to  deduce  from  that  passage  the  doctrine  that  two  witnesses 
are  necessary  ?  Our  Saviour  teaches  no  such  thing.  All  that  he  intepds, 
by  this  reference  to  the  Jewish  law,  is  to  convince  the  Jews  themselves  by 
appealing  to  their  prejudices,  and  thus  convicting  them  by  their  own  law. 
It  is  for  that  purpose  only  that  he  refers  to  the  Jewish  code,  and  not  for  the 
purpose  of  re-enacting  the  rule  under  the  ne^  dispensation  which  he  came 
to  establish..  So  also  in  Hebrews,  x.  28  :  the  Court  will  perceive  that  in 
thjs,  as  in  all  the  other  passages,  there  is  reference  to  the  Jewish  law,  be- 
cause the  text  is  addressed  to  the  Jews  ;  and  in  order  to  overcome  their 


192 

prejudices,  an  appeal  is  made  to  their  own  law,  by  which  they  are  shown 
to  be  condemned.  But  there  is  no  recognition  of  the  binding  force  of  the 
Mosaic  rule  as  to  two  witnesses,  under  the  new  dispensation. 

Then  as  to  the  civil  law,  to  which  the  learned  Counsel  also  referred  in 
support  of  his  extraordinary  position,  all  I  have  to  say  is  this  :  I  admit  that 
according  to  the  civil  law  this  plurality  of  witnesses  is  necessary  to  estab- 
lish a  charge — but  I  deny  that  we  have  adopted  the  civil  law  either  in  our 
political  or'ecclesiastical  institutions  ;' and  according  to  Phillips,  the  civil 
law  prevails  only  where  it  has  been'  expressly  recognised  and  established. 
Now  neither  in  this  country  nor  in  England  does  the  civil  law  prevail,  ex- 
cept, perhaps,  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  England,  and  then  it  is  in 
every  instance,  I  believe,  adopted  by  Canon.  In  this  Court,  we  have  es- 
tablished an  independent  system  of  our  own.  The  Church  in  this  country 
has  adopted  laws  and  Canons  of  its  own  ;  and  unless  by  the  Constitution  and 
Canons  of  the  Church  the  civil  law  is  recognised  and  established,  it  is  not 
of  any  binding  force  in  this  or  any  other  ecclesiastical  Court. 

Upon  .the  subject  of  the  civil  law,  and  to  show  the  absurdity  of  it  on 
this  point  of  two  witnesses,  and  that  it  has  been  abandoned,  I  refer  to  3d 
Blackstone's  Commentaries,  370  : 

"  One  witness  (if  credible)  is  sufficient  evidence  to  a  jury  of  any  single 
fact.  Our  law  considers  that  there  are  many  transactions  to  which  only 
one  person  is  privy  ;  and  therefore  does  not  always  demand  the  testimony 
of  two,  as  the  civil  law  universally  requires.  '  Unius  respomio  testis  om- 
nino  non  audialur.'  To  extricate  itself  out  of  which  absurdity,  the  modern 
practice  of  the  civil  law  Courts  has  plunged  itself  into  another.  For  as 
they  do  not  allow  a  less  number  than  two  witnesses  to  be  plena  prolalio, 
they  call  the  testimony  of  one,  though  never  so  clear  and  positive,  semi 
plena  prolalio  only,  on  which  no  sentence  can  be  founded.  To  make  up, 
therefore,  the  necessary  complement  of  witnesses,  when  they  have  only  one 
to  a  single  fact,  they  admit  the  party  himself  to  be  examined  in  his  own 
behalf,  and  administer  to  him  what  is  called  the  suppktory  oath  ;  and  this 
immediately  converts  the  half  proof  inlo  a  whole  proof.  By  this  ingenious 
device,  satisfying  at  once  the  forms  of  the  Roman  law,  and  acknowledging 
the  superior  reasonableness  of  the  law  of  England,  which  permits  one  wit- 
ness to  be  sufficient,  and  lays  it  down  as  an  invariable  rule  that  "  nemo  testis 
esse  debet  in  propria  causa." 

[Mr.  OGDEN.— You  are  reading  from  a  note  in  that  book,  I  believe. 

Mr. -CLARKE. — Yes,  but  the  language  is  Blackstone's.] 

Mr.  CLARKE  proceeded — Now  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side  endeavors  to 
draw  an  analogy  between  this  and  some  other  cases  in  which  two  witnesses 
are  required  under  the  common  law,  and  refers  to  the  cases  of  treason  and 
perjury.  His  argument  presented  a  very  beautiful  analogy  on  this  point 
.  between  the  crime  of  treason  and  that  with  which  the  party  before  the  Court 
stands'fcharged  ;  but  unfortunately  the  analogy  fails,  because  he  places  the 
reason  of  the  rule  in  treason  on  an  entirely  different  footing  from  that  of  the  law 
itself:  He  supposes  that  in  the  case  of  treason  two  witnesses  are  necessary  be- 
cause  tjie  party  accused  is  supposed  to  be  under  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  his 
country,  and  therefore  that  one  witness  ought  not  to  be  suffered  to  controvert 
that  allegiance,  as  that  would  be  only  oath  against  oath.  That  is  not  the 
foundation  of  the  requirement?  as  I  shall  be  able  to  show  the  Court ;  and 
therefore  that  part  of  his  argument  entirely  fails.  "  The  instances  of 
treason  and  perjury  are  exceptions  to  the  rule."  In  the  case  of  perjury, 


103 

undoubtedly  two  witnesses  are  necessary,  because  you  are  going  to  convict 
a  party  of  swearing  falsely — which  you  cannot  do  on  the  single  oath  of  an- 
other party.  .  The  reason  is  here  quite  apparent.  But  what  is  the  reason 
in  the  case  of  treason  ?  "  In  the  case  of  treason,  it  is  a  mere  rule  of  policy 
devised  for  the  protection  of  the  liberty  of  the  subject.1' — 1st  Starkie,  sec. 
364.  And  these  are  the  only  cases  to  which  the  learned  Counsel  referred, 
or  can  refer,  where  two  witnesses  are  requisite  under  the  statute,  or  by  the 
common  law  in  this  country  ;  and  the  reasons  for  the  exception  in  the  case 
of  treason,  are  entirely  different  from  those  assigned  by  him.  In  the  case 
of  treason,  he  would  have  the  Court  to  suppose  that  it  was  required  because 
the  party  accused  is  to  be  presumed  to  be  under  the  oath  of  allegiance  to 
the  government.  I  have  shown  that  this  is  a  fallacy. 

Then  with  regard  to  the  lapse  of  time,  the  learned  Counsel  has  endeav- 
ored to  draw  another  analogy.  But  before  I  proceed  to  this  point,  allow 
me  to  add  a  word  or  two  in  illustration  of  the  absurdity  of  the  rule  attempt- 
ed to  be  laid  down  with  respect  to  the  requirement  of  the  two  witnesses. 
In  this  country  a  man  can  be  condemned  for  any  crime,  except  the  two 
already  mentioned,  on  the  testimony  of  one  witness.  He  may  be  sent  to 
the  scaffold,  he  may  be  sentenced  to  the  State  Prison  for  life,  on  the  evi- 
dence of  one  witness.  See  then  the  dilemma  to  which  the  Court  would 
be'  reduced  by  the  adoption  of  such  a  rule  as  that  insisted  on  by  the  learn- 
ed Counsel  I  You  could  not  degrade  a  Bishop  whom  the  civil  tribunals 
had  sentenced  to  the  gallows  or  to  the  State  Prison,  because  you  had  not 
two  witnesses  to  the  fact  of  his  guilt !  Is  this  Court  at  this  enlightened 
era  in  any  danger  of  adopting  a  rule  of  evidence  which  would  lead  to 
such  absurdities  as  these  ? 

So  in  regard  to  lapse  of  time,  although  this  Court  has  already  disposed 
of  that  point,  yet  as  it  has  been  alluded  to  by  the  learned  Counsel,  it  may 
be  well  to  show  that  there  is  no  reason  whatever  in  it.  The  whole  doc- 
trine is,  that  in  law,  when  a  great  lapse  of  time  has  intervened  between 
the  commission  of  the  crime  and  the  trial,  it  ought  to  be  taken  into  account 
in  all  doubtful  cases  and  all  doubtful  points,  to  the  benefit  of  the  accused. 
But  if  carried  any  further  than  this,  and  a  rigid  rule  of  limitation  is  adopt- 
ed, precisely  the  same  difficulty  arises  as  in  that  of  two  witnesses.  If  you 
limit  cases  in  this  way.  you  shut  out  from  the  reach  of  your  authority 
offences  punishable  in  the  civil  tribunals.  A  man  guilty  of  murder,  for- 
gery, or  any  other  felony,  three  or  four  years  ago,  is  liable  to  trial  and 
punishment  by  the  statutory  laws.  And  shall  a  rule  of  evidence  be 
adopted  by  which  it  will  be  out  of  your  power  to  try  and  to  degrade  a  Bish- 
op who  may  be  sent  to  the  State  Prison  by  the  civil  tribunals  ?  I  think  not. 

[Ma.  OGDE.V. — I  don't  exactly  understand  your  argument. 

MR.  CLARKE. — I  am  showing  to  what  absurdity  the  adoption  of  a  statute 
of  limitation  in  our  ecclesiastical  system  would  lead. 

MR.  OGDEN. — No.  but  do  you  mean  to  say  that  a  man  who  has  been 
guilty  of  forgery  can  be  brought  to  trial  after  three  years  have  elapsed 
since  the  commission  of  the  act  ? 

MR.  CLARKE. — Xo.  not  in  case  of  forgery  under  our  statute,  but  the  stat- 
utes of  the  different  States  vary  in  this  respect ;  and  I  will  refer  to  the 
tease  of  crim.  con.,  in  which  you  can  bring  an  action  within  six  years, 
even  under  our  statute.] 

MR.  CLARKE. — I  am  satisfied  that  the  Court  are  not  going  to  be  governed 
by  any  rule  of  limitation  which  might  1-  -ad  to  such  absurdity  as  I  have  roen- 

25 


194 

tioned.  .  If  you  do  adopt  any  rule  on  the  subject,  I  should  .suppose  it  would 
be  that  which  prevails  in  our  courts  of  equity  ;  and  what  is  that  ?  Why,  in 
cases  of  fraudulent  concealment,,  you 'can  bring  the  action  in. the  courts  of 
equity  at  any  period  within  six  years  after  the  discovery  is  made.  In  cases 
of  breach;  of  trust,  and  in  .all  other  cases  not  specially  mentioned,  you  may 
bring  it  within  ten  years  after  the"  causes  .of  action  accrued.  Now  I  ask 
the  Court,  if  any  analogy- is  to.be  drawn  between  the  statute  of  limitation 
and  the  practice  of  the  Court,  ought  it  not  to  be  founded  on  this  rule  with 
respect  tof  breaches  of  trust  ?.  Here  is  an  important  trust  committed  to  the 
party  accused,  'which,  if  the  charges  are  true,  he  has  violated,  and  adopt- 
ing the  rule  which  prevails  in  our  courts  of  equity,  he  might  be  proceeded 
against 'at  any  time  within  ten  years  for  the  commission  of  the  act. 

These  tare  all  the  remarks  with  which  I  intend  to  trouble  the  Court  in 
regard  to  the  two  points  raised  by  the  opposite  Counsel. 

I  now  nave  to  consider  the  evidence  produced  before1  you  for  the  purpose 
of  sustaining  -the  charges  in  this  Presentment- 

The  firet  case  is  that  of  Mrs.  Butler.  And  before  I  proceed  to  consider 
that  case,,  permit  me  to  remark  that  there  appears  throughout  this  investi- 
gation, and  throughout  the  argument  of  Counsel,  an  attempt  to  establish  a 
defence -oh  the  ground  that  *he  circumstances  proved  by  the  witnesses  are, 
in  some  Instances,  inconsistent  with  the  charge  made.  It  has  also  been 
attempted;  to  be  shown  that  the  witnesses  brought  in  support  of  the  charge 
have  -contradicted  each  other,  and-.in  some  instances  themselves.  On  this 
point  I  bfeg  to  refer  the  Court  to  some  very  sensible  remarks  made  in 
1  Starkiej  467. 

"  It  is  10  be  observed  that  partial  variances  in  the  testimony  of  different 
witnessesion  minute  and  collateral  points,  although  they  frequently  afford 
the  adverse  advocate  a  topic  for  copious  observation,  are  of  little  .import- 
ance, unless  they  are  too  prominent  to  be  ascribed  to  mere  inadvertence  or 
defect  of  jmemory,  I  know  not  (says  Dr.  Paley)  a  more  rash  or  uriphUo- 
sophical  conduct  of  the  understanding,  than  to  reject  the  substance  of  a 
story  by  reason  of  some  diversity  in  the  circumstances  with  which  it  is  re- 
lated. The  usual  character  of  human  testimony  is  substantial  truth  under 
circumstantial  variety.  This  is  what  the  daily  experience  of  courts  of 
justice  teaches.  When  accounts  of  a  transaction  come  from  the  mouths 
of  different  witnesses,  it  is  seldom  that  it  is  not  possible  to- pick  out  appa- 
rent or  real  inconsistencies  between  them.  These  inconsistencies  are  studi- 
ously displayed  .by  an  adverse  pleader,  but  oftentimes  with  little  impres- 
sion on  the  minds  of  the.;  judges.  On  the  contrary,  a  close  and  minute 
agreement  induces  the  suspicion  of  confederacy  and  fraud*  Numerous, 
and  sometimes  important,  variations  present  themselves  ;  not  seldom,  also, 
absolute  contradictions  ;  yet  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  are  deemed  suf- 
ficient to  shake  the  credibility  of  the  main  fact." 

.  Now  in  regard  to  the  testimony  of.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler,  and  of  Misses 
Rudderpw,  and  that  of  Mr.  and  Mrs,  Beare,  it  is  quite  possible  some  dis- 
crepanciqs  may  be  presented  in  the  various  statements ;  but  I  ask  the  Court 
whether,  ;under  the  authority  just  cited,  a  variation  by  different  witnesses 
in  the  narration  of  circumstances  is  to  be  regarded  as  shaking  their  testi- 
mony as 'to  the  main  fact,  when  they  agree  iji  that  ? 

There  as  an  important'  fact  connected  with  this  case,  ip  respect  to  the 
character;  of  these  witnesses.  The  Court  will  have  observed  that  all  the 
testimony  offered  in  support  of  these  charges  comes  from  communicants — 


from  the  sons .and  daughters  of  the  Church.  The  ; Presenters  h>ve.  not 
gone  out  into  th«  -world  to  seek  for  /witnesses  against' the  accused  party;... 
They  have  not  gon'e  beycmd .  th'e  :p^ie;  of  their  own  Chlirch.  In' all -in- 
stances,, and  it- is  a.  refmarkable  feet, ..the  witnesses  are  communicants  of 
our  Church;  If  then-the  accused  1§  tq  be 'foiipd  guilty,,  if  he  is  to  be  con- 
demned, it  will  not  be  on  the  te^tinlony  of  .enemies,  but  on  that  of  meiii- 
bers  of  his  own  flock;  and  :as  •  we  '  wjll.  show  you.  members  of  his'. omr. 
flook' who  can  haVe  no  earthly  ob'je'ot.  but -fKe  Establishment  of:  the  truth. 

.  Well,  then,  we  'now:  come  to  the-  ctlse.pf  Mrs.  Butleri  ft  is  not  neces- 
sary to  go;' into  any  detail  of  tiie: 'facts' Delated  by  her. '  -Thev  will  be 
fresh  in  the  recollection  of  eve  fy.meEfl'ber'of  the 'Court,  and  la  re  too  humil- 
iating and  disgusting  to  be  repeated  ofte"rier  than  is  absolutely  required". 
The- Counsel  ori  the  other  side  will- concede- that  if  tlint  charge  be  proved 
to  the-  satisfaction  of  the  Cputt^then  at  that  time,  whatever'; may  be' the' 
case  now,  the  accused  party  .was  al'togetiK'r  disqualified  for  the  high  and 
h-ply  'office,  which  he  holds,  and  that  the  only  way  in  \vh.ieh,  lie  could  have 
goit.  rid  of -stich  disqualification-,  lirbst  .have''*eieh  by  subsequent  repenfailc'e/ 
and  .amendment. — Who  then  arc  Mr.  uu(l .'Mrs.'  Butler?  •  Are  they  un-": 
.known,  to  the  members  of  this  Coijrl  ?  'Aire  "they  strangers,  whose  charae*.' 
ters  require:' to  be  examined  into  arid  proyod  ?•  Certainly  not.  Ma\  B'ritter ' 
is  the  son  of  a  clergyman,  welt  -known  to  'e'revy  '  member"'  of-  the  Court. 
His  Father  was  a  distinguished  'clergyman  of  Troy,  whose- fame  was 'In' all 
the  Churches  ;  and  I- Venture  't6  say  that. there  never  has  been  a  man 
reared  in  tliis  State.,  with  more-care  as 'to  hi^-niOral  charapter. and  princi- 
ples than  Mr.  Butler.  He  \yas  indieed' brought  up  according  to ;t lie  strict- 
est •principles  of  OUT  religion,  and  he  comes,  before  you  with  tliat  character. 
Ana  who  is. his  wife-?  Is  she i  unkhcAVri  t®  this  Court  ?  -Her  fatlier  was 
the  most  intimate  friend  of  the',  party  accused.  She  was  herself  no  st ran- ' 
ger  to  him. ,  She  had  been  brought  up  umle'r-hLa  eye.  She  had  from  her^ 
youth  -experienced,  from  him  that  kind  of  aiiecUqriate,  regard  which, 'as  she 
herself 'say?,  sh6  once.  "  supposed  parental,"-  and  which  the, Counsel  at- 
tempted to  show  had  ih  truth  been  exhibited  towards  her.  }  ask. 
coulid  these ! 
'  these  facts 
:  tile  •feelings 

cofne  here  for  the  discharge  of  thev.painfaVfmf  the  holy  and  swrred  duty, 
of  establishing. the  truth  in  this  important  investigation  ? 

Well,  th^n,  how  stands  the  cfase  presented  in  the  testimony  of  these 
•highly  respectable' and  unimpeachable  witnesses  ?     Mr.  Butler  being  in 
••deacon's  orders,  and   settled  a.t  Syracnse,    knowing  that  .the  Bishop  was 
coming    on;   that   .route'  of  .visitation,    from    the  •  most   affectionate   con- 
sideration for  him,  goes  fifty'  miles  for  .the;  purpose  of  meeting  ;hioi,   and 
•  carrying  hirtn  to  his  place  of  residence;  and' this  lady,  showing  the  affection 
which  she  then  entertained  for 'the  Bishop,  accompanies -her  hrisb'and  on  that 
Journey  of  fifty  miles.     She  does-  meet 'iiini.  and  he  proceeds  with  her  and 
her  husband  to  the  place  where  he  was  to  fulfil  his  appointment.  She  trayefe 
the  w-hole  night  in  order  to  enable  the  Bishop  to  reach  his1  place  of  destina- 
.  tioh  in  due? season  for  the  ordination  ;  and  it  was  during  that  awfuj  highi 
that  these  transactions  took  place  y,'hich   are  the  foundation  of  one  of  the 
charges  now  presented  against  the  accused.. 

The- Counsel  who  has  already  addressed  you  did,  rot— I  regret  exceed- 
ingly, that  he  did  not— hear  the  testimony  of  that  lady;  for  in  the  whote 


196 

course  of  my  experience,  I  have  never  seen  a  witness  who  went  through 
such  an  ordeal  with  more  distinguished  credit.  I  ask  the  Court  to  remark 
her  sitting  in  that  chair,  and  say  whether  there  was  the  slightest  indication 
on  her  part  of  any  hostility  towards  the  party  accused  ?  Could  you,  from 
any.  thing  you  saw  or  heard,  imagine  that  she  was  governed  by  any  other 
feeling  than  a  sincere  desire  to  state  the  truth  ?  Such,  then,  is  the  case  of 
Mrs.  Butler,  sustained  in  part  by  the  evidence  of  her  husband*;  indeed,  I 
may  say  wholly  sustained,  for  in  .addition  to  his  testimony  on  the  stand,  a 
reading  of  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Butler  was  asked  for,  and  it  is  now  in  evi- 
dence before  you ;  and  that  affidavit  narrates  all  the  particular  circum- 
stances of  that  case.  It  is  true  that  we  could  not  have  offered  that  affidavit 
— as  to  all  its  main  features  it  was  undoubtedly  hearsay.  He  had  the  nar- 
ration from  his  wife,  and  we  could  not  have  made  his  version  of  it  testimony  ; 
but  our  opponents  had  a  right  to  do  so,  and  they  have  availed  themselves 
of  it,  and  you  have  now  before  you  the  testimony  of  both  as  to  all  the  facts. 

Well,  what  are  the  comments  of  the  Counsel  on  the  story  of  Mrs.  But- 
ler ?  Why,  that  it  appears  to  him  so  direct,  so  straightforward,  so  clear, 
that  it  must  have  been  a  made-up  story  !  That  it  was  made  for  the  occa- 
sion, not  dictated  by  her  consciousness  of  truth,  by  a  determination  to  tell  the 
truth  !  That  is  the  inference  which  the  Counsel  wishes  the  Court  to  draw, 
and  for  what  reason  ?  Not  from  any  confusion  in  her  manner — not  on  ac- 
count of  any  deviations  from  what  every  person  who  heard  her  testimony 
must  have  regarded  as  a  continual  flow  of  truth;  but  the  Counsel  thinks 
"  because  she  told  so  straight  a  story,  it  must  necessarily  have  been  made 
up!"  Now,  I  have  heard  Counsel  argue  ably  and  successfully,  that  be- 
cause a  witness  was  confused  in  the  manner  of  testifying — because  mani- 
fest inconsistencies  in  his  statements  appeared  in  regard  to  the  several. facts 
testified  to,  the  inference  was  to  be  drawn  that  the  truth  was  not  told — that 
the  witness  was  guilty  of  a  fatal  inconsistency,  which  destroyed  the  force  of 
his  testimony.  But  quite  a  different  course  is  adopted  by  the  Counsel  on 
this  occasion ;  this  lady's  testimony  is  impugned  because  it  is  so  direct,  so 
straight-forward.  Oh  !  but,  says  the  Counsel,  if  that  testimony  is  true — 
if  the  Bishop  was  ever  guilty  of  that  misconduct  towards  Mrs.  Butler,  was 
it  probable  that  she  could  have  behaved  in  the  way  she  states  ? 

The  gentleman  entirely  overlooks  in  his  argument  the  relative  position  of 
these  witnesses  and  the  party  accused..  How  was  Mrs.  Butler  situated  ?  She 
was  then  but  1 9  or  20  years  of  age — she  had  been  brought  up  under  the  eye  of 
the  Bishop — her  father  had  been  his  particular  friend  ;  she  found  the  Bishop 
laboring,  as  she  thought,  under  the  effects  of  intoxication,  and  she  was  wil- 
ling to  hope  that  the  indignities  which  she  experienced  from  him  arose  from 
that  cause — not  having  heard  any  thing  at  that  time  which  would  have  led 
her  to  suppose  that  they  evinced  a  prevailing  licentious  propensity.  She  was 
therefore  in  these  circumstances,  and  acting  under  these  impressions,  dis- 
posed to  submit  to  the  indignity  rather  than  make  an  outcry.  But  yet  she 
did  make  an  appeal  to  the  Bishop  himself,  which  I  should  have  supposed 
would  have  melted  the  most  obdurate  heart.  What  was  it  ?  Why,  she  kindly 
fook  the  hand  which  had  been  the  instrument  of  that  indignity,  and  placing 
it  modestly  and  gently  on  his  knee,  said,  "  Bishop  Onderdohk,  I  have  been 
accustomed  to  respect  that  hand. — it  has  been  laid  on  the  heads  of  many  of 
those  whom  1  love — to-morrow  it  is  to  b*e  laid  in  ordination  on  the  head  of 
tny  husband" — disgrace  it  not,  pollute  it  not  by  such  conduct  as  this  !  That 
is  the  appeal  that  she  made,  and  for  the  express -purpose  of  bringing  him  to- 


197 

a  proper  sense  of  his  misconduct,  and  also  of  attract  ng  the  attention  of  her 
husband,  without  exposing  the  matter  to  the  driver.  'And  I  ask,  cannot  the 
Court  appreciate  the  motives  of  this  lady  ?  Were  they  not  laudable  ?  and  do 
they  not  commend  themselves  to  every  honorable  mind— to  every  feeling  heart? 

It  seems  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler  had  taken  with  them  in  the  carriage 
a  man  who  was  but  slightly  attached  to  the  Church,  and  who  had  some  sus- 
picion of  the  purity  of  the  clergy  who  ministered  in  it.  Thai  had  .been 
the  subject  of  conversation  from  Syracuse  to  Ithaca,  therefore  we  can 
easily  account  for  the  extreme  unwillingness  of  the  lady  to  make  any  ex- 
posure of  the  highly  improper  conduct  of  the  Bishop  in  the  presence  of  this  ' 
man.  She  thought  that  the  indignity  would  not  be  repe'ated  ;  but  it  was  re- 
peated, and  with  ado*ed  grossness,  and  she  was  finally  compelled  to  fly  from 
her  seat  beside  the  accused  to  the  lap  of  her  husband,  on  the  front  seat,  and 
there  she  remained  during  the  whole  of  the  night,  inclement  as  it  was,  be-  m 
cause  it  was  no  longer  safe  for  her  to  remain  where  she  had  been  seated. 
And  it  is  a  remarkable  feature  in  this  case,  that  the  Bishop  never  made  any 
allusion  to  this  movement  on  her  part,  and  never  asked  for  any  explanation 
whatever.  Such  is  her  testimony.  She  relates  all  this  to  her  husband  on  the 
first  opportunity.  What  is  his  conduct  ?  Was  it  not  that  which  would  have 
been  the  conduct  of  any  other  virtuous  man  ?  He  says  at  the  moment,  "  I  will 
not  be  ordained  by  the  Bishop  !  I  will  not  ride  with  him  !  I  will  not  have 
any  thing  to  do  with  him !"  And  it  was  with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  his 
wife  succeeded  in  soothing  his  feelings  so  as  to  induce  him  to  go  on,  or  be 
ordained  by  the  Bishop  the  next  day.  But  the  Counsel  asks,  "  If  such  an 
indignity  was  offered,  why  was  there  not  more  noise  made  about  it  ?"  It 
will  readily  occur  to  the  mind  of  every  one  that  there  were  various  rea- 
sons why  a  great  noise  was  not  made  about  the  matter.  Mr.  Butler  was  a 
young  man  just  entering  the  ministry  ;  he  had  never  heard  of  any  thing 
against  the  Bishop ;  he  thought  that  this,  perhaps,  was  only  a  single  in- 
stance of  indiscretion  ;  if  he  came  out  and  exposed  him,  what  was  the  con- 
sequence ?  Why,  he  would  be  called  on  to  meet  a  very  powerful  opponent ; 
and  how  ?  On  the  testimony  of  his  wife,  who  would  thus  be  exposed  to  all  the 
harassing  and  painful  consequences  of  accusing  a  Bishop  of  such  gross  enor- 
mities. Was  not  all  that  more  than  sufficient  to  appal  a  man  of  stronger 
nerves  than  Mr.  Butler  f  There  were  many  reasons  to  operate  in  keeping  him 
silent,  and  but  one  that  he  should  expose  the  Bishop — the  conviction  that  he 
was  corrupt,  and  ought  to  be  exposed.  Under  the  influence  of  these  feelings, 
then,  Mr.  Butler  refrained  from  denouncing  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  on  that 
occasion.  Perhaps  he  erred  in  this;  if  so,  it  was  the  error  of  a  kind  heart. 

But  I  ask,  was  not  the  subsequent  conduct  of  Mr.  Butler  consistent 
throughout  ?  I  admit  he  did  not  pursue  the  course  which  I  myself  would 
have  adopted,  and  which  doubtless  many  of  those  whom  I  now  address  would 
have  pursued.  But  was  not  his  conduct  consistent  after  he  had  resolved  on 
that  course  which  he  should  adopt?  The  Counsel  has  founded  his  argu- 
ment almost  wholly  on  what  he  calls  the  improbabilities  of  this  case — im- 
probabilities arising  from  the  character  of  the  charge  itself,  and  the  conduct 
of  those  parties  towards  the  Bishop  subsequently.  And  how  is  this?  Mrs. 
Butler,  it  will  be  recollected,  never  saw  the  Bishop  from  that  time  till  she 
saw  him  here,  with  the  exception  of  one  single  occasion,  at  the  holding  of 
the  Convention  at  Utica.  She  never  exchanged  a  word  with  him  on  any 
subject  since  that  time,  and  only  saw  him  once.  We  therefore  search  in 
vain  for  any  inconsistency  in  her  conduct.  Now,  with  regard  to  Mr.  Butler, 


he  says  that  on  one  occasion  the  Bishop  did  pass  through  Syracuse  ;  but  did 
Mr.  Butler  go  to  see  hkp  ?  Did'the  Bishop  call  upon  Mr.  Butler,  then  the  only 
clergyman  of  our  Church  in  .that  village  ?  Not  at  al{.  That  is  certainly  a 
remarkable  fact  in  the  .ca^se,  showing  as  it  does  a  consciousness  on  the  part 
of  the  accused  that  he-  had  been  guilty  of  some  impropriety  of  conduct.  Mr. 
Butler  was  informed,,  however,  by  one  of  his  vestry}  that  the  Bishop  was 
there,  and  he  was  asked  if  he  knew  it  before,  and  he  said  he  did  ;  he  knew 
it  half  an  hour  before, '^but  he  did  not  think  it  proper  to  wait  on  the  Bishop, 
nor  would  he  have  done  so.  had  he  not  been  sent  for  for  that  purpose  by  one 
of  his  vestry.  \Vas  it  not  then  perfectly  proper  and  perfectly  consistent  that 
he  should  go  1  He  wa&then  obliged  either  to  call  on  the  Bishop,  or  to  tell  the 
vestryman  the  reason  why.  Then  the  whole  transaction  would  have  come 
out.  But  that  would  have  been  directly  contrary  to.  the  course  which  Mr. 
Butler  had  marked  out.  for  himself.  Mrs.  Butler  and  her  husband  had  de* 
•termined  after  that  time  to  have  no  intercourse  with  the  Bishop  that  they 
could  possibly  avoid.  fThey  meant  to  treat  him  with  the  civility  due  to  his 
office,  if  forced  into  his  .-.company  ;  but  Mr.  Butler  did  not  think  it  proper  to. 
.call  upon  him  voluntarily,  and  would  not  have  called  at  all  but  for  the  rea- 
sons before  slated.  But  he  did  go,  under  the  circumstances,  and  met  the 
.Bishop,  in  company  with  some  other  gentlemen,  and -remained  with  him  till 
his  departure.  This  is'all  the  intercourse  he  has  had  with  the  Bishop,  except 
meeting  him  once,  at  the  time  of  the  Convention  at  Ulica,  when  they  ex- 
changed the  ordinary  salutations  in  passing.  And  I  believe,  with  these  two 
exceptions,  Mr.  Butler  has  never  met  with  the  Bishop  since  the  transactions 
complained  of  in  the  Presentment. 

Are  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side  then  really  prepared  to  say  that  they 
have  made  out  the  conduct  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler,  to  be  so  inconsistent 
and  improbable,  that  they  must  be  convicted  of  perjury  ?  Is  there  any 
thing  to  suspect  in  their  testimony  ?  On  the  contrary,  I  ask  triumphantly, 
is  not  the  conduct  of  both  the  lady  and  her  husband  perfectly  consistent 
throughout  ?  Unless  I  am  entirely  mistaken,'  there  never  was  a  charge 
more  completely  made  out.  and  more  thoroughly  corroborated  by  the  sub- 
sequent conduct  of  the  parties.  The  only  argument  of  the  Counsel  was 
based  on  the  assertion,  that  it  was  improbable  tnat  the  Bishop  could  com- 
mit such  an  offence ;  or  that  if  it  had  been  committed,  the  parties  would 
have  treated  the  Bishop  differently.  ' 

The  Counsel  put  several  questions  to  Mr.  Butler,  fer  the  purpose  of  show- 
ing that  he  was  engaged  in  a.  conspiracy  in  getting  up.  this  presentment:  in 
this,  however,  he  signally  failed.  Mr.  Butler  states,;  that  having  settled  in 
Boston,  and  hearing  there  was  trouble  of  this  description  brewing  iri  Phila- 
.delphia,  he  at  once  determined  not  to  go  to  that  city ,  'although  he  had  pre- 
viously made  arrangements.  ,to:go  there  with  his  friend,  Dr.  Vinton.  He 
was  apprehensive  he  might  be  called  on  to  testify,  and  therefore  deter- 
mined not  to  go.  But  his  friend  promised  to  write  him  in  case  any  inves- 
tigation should  be  going  on,  and  not  hearing  any  thing  from  him,  he  con- 
cluded that  the  matter  had  passed  off,  or  been  laid  aside,  and  accordingly  went 
to  Philadelphia.  This  shows  how  carefully  he  acted— how  reluctant  he  was 
to  be  made  a  witness  in  this  case..  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler  must  be  regarded  as 
unwilling  witnesses,  and  appear  here  only  from  an  imperious  sense  of  duty. 

But  the  Counsel  has  attempted  to  show  that  there  is  some  discrepancy 
in  their  testimony  ;  but  that  is  as  completely  and  satisfactorily  explained,  as 
it  is  possible  for  any  difference  in  human  testimony  to  be.  It  will  be  recol- 


A 

••      :       s^B'-'-      •••  if     •  '•     \'  >  »A  •  *: 'V..  . 

that  Mr.  Butler,  in  his  affidavit,  stated  that  tf»e  Bishop  attempted 

to-.puU  up  his  wife's  clothes.   "  Mrs.  Butler  corrected  :th'at  as  soon  as-^she 
heard  of  it.     Hqw  js  this  to  -be  explained  ?  r  Mrs,-  But^r,  when  she  left 

•  the  seat  beside  the  "Bishop  [anil  went  forward  to  her  husband,  stated  the 
difficulty  in  a.  whisper.     Mr.  Butler  sweats  tp  that/ajid  $p  does  she.    -And 
it  will  be  recollected  that  ope  part  of -the  charge  is*  that  the  Bishop  caught 
her  by  the"  thigh,  and  probably  somewhat  raised  hfec  clothes,  as  she  says  ; 
that  in-  communicating:  the  matter  to  her  hfusbarid,  ije  thoiight  that  she  told 
him  that  the  Bishop  had  attempted  to  raise  her  clothe.s,:which  was  incor- 
rect—she only  expressed  &  fear  -he  would  do  so ;  and,  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  that  both  mutually  agreed  to  dismiss  the  su,bjecf  from  all  remark — 
and  thus  he  remained  under  that  erroneous  impre^sion-'to  the  time  h'e  made 
the  affidavit  in  Philadelphia.  ,  -^ 
:  [Bishop  I v^s — It  'is  explained  on  the  ground  ;that  she  feared  that  the 
Bishop,  would  do  sOr-Hnere  apprehension  on  her  part.] 

Mr.  CLARKE — That  may  be  so.  Bat.  now  I  ask  the  Court  whether  that 
'discrepancy,  arising,  from  mere  misapprehension,  is  not  tpo  small  a  matter" 
( >:i  which  to  ground  a. -serious  argument  ?  She-,  in  her  fright  and  agitation,  in 
getting. over  that  seat,  makes  this  hurried  comm'unicati6ii,  and  this,  misap- 
. prehension  on  his  part  becomes  imprinted  or*  his  mindj  and  forms  part  of 
IMS'  recollection  of  the  transaction ;  and  as  the.  subject  wasVnot  again  brought 
up  between  them,  the  misapprehension  remained-  unco-rrected.  But  wUeu- 
he  made  the  affidavit,  it  is  evident  that  he  made  the  statement  in  the  firm 
belief  that  it  was  true  ;  but  when,  on  his  return.-  from.  Boston,  he  showed 
tlio  affidavit  to  his ,  wife,  she  confirmed  -every  part  of  jj  but  that,;  which 
she  contradicted  immediately,  and  Mr.  Butler  immediately  wrote  to  Bishop 
^Mpade,  informing  him' of  the  mistake.  Now,,  according  to  the  rule:qiioted 
.from  Starkie;  this  fact  goes  to  confirm  the  veracity. of  both  witnesses;  be- 
cause, if  they  had  intended  to  make  up  a  story"  to. impose  upon  this  Court, 
they  would  have  undoubtedly  agreed  in  all  (he  dejajls  of  their  statement : 
that  is  the  case  with  all  those  who  attempt  'to  impose. oh  others  by  a  prq- 
concerted,  and  false,  story.  '  ;• .  ' 

But  the  .Counsel' asks  Mr.  Butler  if  he  did.net  meet  the  Bishop  at  UticaT 
'on  another  occasion.  \  He  admits  that  he  did,  unexpectedly. — at  dinner,  at 
the  house  of  Mr.  Trying;  and. he  is  then  interrogated — 

[Bishop .BE" LANCET — It  was  at  Geneva.] 

^Ir.  CLARKE — Ye«,  it  M'as.  He  is  interrogated' closely  as  to  how  he 
conducted  himself^  and  his  account  is  entirely  consistent.  He  said  he 
treated  the  Bishop  with  civility,  and  entered  into^conversation  with  him. 
just  so  far  as  to  avoid- exciting  any  suspicion  that  anyidegree  of  doolness 
existed  on  his  part,  or  any  hostile  feeling  towards  the  Bishop.  This  is 

•  perfectly  consistent  .with  Mr.   Butler's  fixed  determination  relative  to  the 
course  which  he  resolved  to  pursue.     If  he,  a  presbyter}  had  been  particu- 
larly cold  to.wards  the  Bishop,  it  would  at  once  have  attracted  attention, 

and  led  to  that  explanation  which  Mr.  Butler  liad  qetennjned  to  avoid.  If 
lie  :had  pursued  a  different  course  on  this  occasion,^  w<juld  have  been  at 
once  asked  Jjy  Mr.  Irving,  "  Why.  have  you  insulted ;  the  Bishop?  you 
Jiave  not  only  insulted  him,  but  you  ha\ie  also  ipsuked  i?ie.  whose  guest 
he -is — -what'  is  the -reason  for  such  -conduct  ?"  Therefore  Mr.  Butler 
states,  that  he  d>d  treat  the  Bishop  with  civility  on  tfei*  occasion,  and  the 
explanation  is  obvious. 
•I  have  no.thing:  further  to  say  on  this  case:  unless  lam  entirely  .mis- 


taken,  it  stands  unimpaired  by  any  thing  that  has  been,  or  can  be  offered 
in  opposition. 

The  next  case  is  that  related  by  Mr.  Bolles ;  and  the  Counsel  seems  to 
think  that  this  charge  has  wholly  failed.  ladmit  that  the  testimony  of  this 
witness  js  different  from  what  we  expected,  and  from  what  we  had  reason  to 
expect,  and  different  from  what  the  witness  had  stated  on  former  occasions. 
I  admit  the  principle  that  we  cannot  impeach  our  own  witness.  I  do  not 
intend  to  attempt  it;  but  I  do  intend  to  show  that  Mr.  Bolles  has  exhibited 
Tan  extraordinary  want  of  memory  in  regard  to  that  transaction. 

What  is  the  charge  ?  That  in  riding  in  the  public  stage,  the  Bishop  sat 
in  the  back  seat  with  a  young  lady,  and  that  he  put  his  arm  around  her, 
and  took  indecent  liberties  with  her  person.  Mr.  Bolles  says  that  he  and 
the  Bishop  sat  on  the  middle  seat,  and  that  the  lady  and  -a  child  sat  on  the 
back  seat ;  and  that,  in  the  course  of  the  ride,  the  Bishop,  being  quite  a 
stranger  to  the  lady,  probably  never  having  seen  her  before,  placed  his 
hand  upon  hers,  which  she  had  happened  to  place  on  the  strap  dividing  the 
seats.  Now,  according  to  my  view  of  moral  and  decent  behavior,  that 
was  a  gross  impropriety.  Perhaps,  if  it  stood  alone,  unconnected  with 
a.ny  other  case,  it  would  not  appear  so  strange  ;  but  when  it  is  immediate- 
ly preceded  by  such  a  case  as  that  to  which  I  have  just  alluded,  it  cer- 
tainly must  be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  very  gross  impropriety.  I  ask, 
what  gentleman  is  there  in  this  community,  having  a  proper  regard  for  hig 
own  character,  who  ever  takes  such  liberties  with  females  in  the  public 
stage  ?  But  he  did  not  stop  there.  She  withdrew  her  hand — and  as  Mr. 
Bolles  states,  "  blushingly "  withdrew  it.  Did  he  stop  ?  He  had  an  op- 
portunity of  witnessing  the  effect  produced  by  the  first  liberty — but  did  it 
satisfy  him  ?  Not  at  all.  He  again  seizes  her  hand,  and  holds  it  in  his, 
for  what  length  of  time  I  know  not.  And  how  did  the  action  strike  Mr. 
Bolles  at  the  time  ?  As  it  would  every  other  man  of  proper  feeling — as 
a  gross  impropriety  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop.  I  think  I  can  show  that 
such  was  his  impression  then.  He  now  states  that  it. was  a  foolish  act, 
and  liable  to  misconstruction.  That  is  the  view  he  takes  of  the  action 
now  ;  but  it  was  not  the  view  he  took  of  it  at  the  time.  It  is  in  evidence 
before  you,  that" when  they  reached  a  certain  village  where  there  was  a, 
Methodist  school,  Mr.  Bolles  supposed  that  the  lady  was  going  to  get  out 
there,  which  he  greatly  regretted.  Why  ?  Because  he  says  he  feared  that 
she  might  relate  this  matter  in  such  a  manner  as  to  operate  to  the  injury 
of  the  Church !  That  was  the  conclusion  in  his  mind  then ;  and  1  ask, 
what  clearer  evidence  could  you  desire  as  to  the  light  in  which  he  re- 
garded the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  on  that  occasion  ?  And  it  is,. moreover, 
evident  from  his  statement,  that  the  young  lady  left  the  stage  before  she 
reached  her  destination,  in.  order  to  avoid  the  annoyance  she  had  suffered. 

Then,  again,  when  Mr.  'Bolles  got  to  Utica,  very  soon  after  his  arrival 
he  relates  this  matter  to  Dr.  Hawks,  and  about  the  same  period  to  Dr. 
Taylor  also — before  Mr.  Bolles  and  Dr.  Hawks  went  to  the  Bishop,  on 
the  subject. 

[Bishop  LEE — That  is  not  in  evidence. 

Mr.  CLARKE — I  believe  it  is,  sir.  Did  he  consult  Dr.  Taylor  before  he 
told  him  the  story  ?  Dr.  Taylor  had  heard  Mr.  Bolles'  story  before  he 
(Mr.  Bolles)  and  Dr.  Hawks  .went  to  the  Bishop. 

Clerk  of  Court — Read  from  minutes  of  evidence,  sustaining  the  accuracy 
of  the  statement  of  the  learned  Counsel.] 


201 

Mr.  CLARKE  proceeded — I  ask,  then,  what  is  the  impression  made  on  Div 
Taylor  ?  It  is  evident  that  that  story  was  the  only  inducement  which  led 
him  to  call  on  the  Bishop.  How  did  Dr.  Taylor  view  it  ?  Why,  so  im- 
portant 'did  he  regard  the  matter,  that  although  ha  found  the  Bishop  en- 
gaged with  several  gentlemen .  in  the  church,  yet  he  begged  five  minutes' 
interview  with  him,  and  the  Bishop  was  constrained  to  excuse  himself  to 
those  who  were  with  him,  and  to  accompany  Dr.  T.  into  the  vestry-room, 
for  the  purpose  of  receiving  his  communication.  Dr.  Taylor  turned  the 
key  of  the  door,  and  then  related  the  story  told  by  Mr.  Bolles.  How  did 
the  Bishop  receive  this  statement  ?  He  denied  the  charge — told  Dr.  Tay- 
lor not  to  be  at  all  annoy ed -about  it — and  said  that  it  was  only  a  little  girl 
that  he  had  taken  up,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  her  something  on  the 
road.  But  I  wish  the  Court  to  mark  one  fact.  Did  the  Bishop  tell  Dr. 
Taylor  that  there  was  a  young  lady  in  the  stage  ?  Did  he  not  entirely 
omit  that  fact  ?  And  I  ask,  for  what  reason  ?  Has  the  Counsel  given 
any  explanation  of  that  omission  ?  It  appears  to  me  to  be  a  very  fatal 
one.  It  is  very  evident,  from  the  statement  both  of  Dr.  Taylor  and  of 
Mr.  Bolles,  that  the  story  was  deemed  of  such  importance  as  to  lead  to  the 
calling  of  the  Bishop  out  into  the  vestry-room,  for  an  explanation ;  and 
that  then  he  referred  to  his  taking  up  the  little  child,  which  was  true ;  but 
he  entirely  omitted  to.  state  that  there  was-  also  a  young  lady  in  the  stage, 
in  regard  to  whom  the  charge  was  made.  That  omission,  as  I  have  just 
said,  appears  to  me  very  remarkable.  It  certainly  does  require  some 
explanation. 

These  are  all  the  remarks  that  I  intend  to  offer  on  the  case  of  Mr. 
Bolles.  But  it  occurs  to  me  that  I  made  an  omission  of  some  importance 
in  the  case  ofMIrs.  Butler.  During  the  course  of  that  terrible  examina- 
tion of  five  hours,  the  question  was  put — and  it  must  have  been  suggested  by 
some  one  for  the  evident  purpose  of  involving  her  in  some  inconsistency — 
'•  whether,  after  all  that  had  occurred  between  her  and  the  Bishop,  he  had 
not  visited  her  house,  and  whether  she  and  her  husband  had  not  taken  him 
all  over  it,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  him  how  well  they  were  accommo- 
dated ?"  What  was  the  answer  ?  Why,  that  she  and  her  husband  had 
never  done  so — :that.no  such  proceeding  had  ever  taken  place;  and  so 
satisfied  was  the  Counsel  that  he  had  been  misled,  that  when  Mr.  Butler 
came  to  be  examined,  the  question. was  not  put  to  him. 

I  come  ROW  to  the  case  of  the  Misses  Rudderow ;  and  I  shall  consider 
these  two  specifications. together,  as  they  are  closely  connected. 

Now  what  is  the  testimony  of  Miss  Helen  Rudderow?  Why,  that  in 
1--SI.  when  the  Bishop  visited  St.  James's  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  per- 
forming the  rite  of  confirmation — but  which,  in  consequence  of  some  mis- 
take, was  not  administered  on  that  occasion — her  sister  having  been  obliged 
to  go  home  before  services  were  over,  by  reason  of  a  nervous  headache, 
she  invited  the  Bishop  to  dinner.  I  am  not  sure  whether  he  had  not  been 
previously  invited, — at  all  events,  the  invitation  was  extended  by  her.  He 
accepted  it.  and  was.  with  her,  driven  in  the  carriage  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Richmond,  to  the  residence  of  her  brother.  Mr.  John  Rudderow.  During 
that  short  ride  of  one  mile,  those  gross  acts  were  committed. 

The  Counsel  has  animadverted  on  the  improbability  of  the  story 
told  by  this  lady,  because  she  states  that  the  drive  of  one  mile  occu- 
pied half  an  hour.  I  have  no  doubt  it  seemed  a  very  long  period  to 

26 


;  '  •  '202 

her;  but  it  must  also' be  recollected,  that 'the  roads  were  very  bad,  and 
that  the  carriage' was  drawn -by  a  parson's  horse,  which  the  Counsel  has 
told  you  is  not  usually  an  animal  greatly  addicted  to  r.unnirig  away.  No 
doubt  the  extraordinary  and 'painful  situation  in  which  the  young' lady  was 
unhappily  placed/  on  this  occasion,  made  the'  time  occupied  in  returning 
home  appear  longer  to  Her  than  it  really  was.  But  the  indignity  was  com- 
mitted during  that  ride*;  and  so  agitated  was  she  when  she  got  home,  that 
she-  immediately;  ran  '.up.staiys  and  left  the;  Bishop  below—made  a  short 
communication  to  her  Bister,  relative  to  the  wanner  in  which  she  had  been 
treated,  and  burst  into  tears,  .requesting  her  Bister  to  go  down  and.  entertain 
the  Bishop.  Well'!,' the  Counsel  has  labored  hard  to  prove  the  improbability 
of  this  conduct  ;,'and  indeed  his  whole  argument  is  directed  to  that  effort. 
But  here  is  a  fact,,  sworn  to  by  a  communicant  of  the-  .Church,— is 'it  to  be 
disregarded  and  disbelieved,  because  the  transaction  .testified  to  appeal's 
improbable  ?  I  edmit  that  on  their  face,  all  these  charges  appear  impro- 
bable. They  must  always  appear  so.  'A  charge  of  impropriety  6f  con- 
duct against  a  Bishop  of  the  Church,  must  always  appear  improbable. 
God  forbid  that  i\\e  time  should  ever  come,  when  such  charges  would  not 
appear  improbable !  Whether  the  accused  party  in  this  case  has  availed 
himself  of  that  factj  and.  has  intended  to  avail  himself  of  that  circumstance, 
w  the  commissiop  of  al'J  these  acts,  it  is  not  for  me  tp'say.  But  I  ask  the 
Court  whether  they  are  prepared  to  say,  that  because  the  charge  is,  on  the 
face  of  it,  improbable, '  Miss  Rudderow  is  therefore  .  to  be  regarded  as 
swearing  falsely  in  regard  to  it?  Here  she  stands,  a  communicant  of  th& 
Church,  with  noj  earthly  -motive  for  appearing  herej  but  to  establish  the  • 
truth, — and  I  ask. ^re  the  Court  prepared  to  reject  h,er  testimony,  because 
she  swears  to  that  which  must  of  necessity  ever  be.  regarded  as  improba- 
ble— the  commission  of  an  act  of  gross  and  immoral  character,  by  a 
Bishop  of  the  CHurch  1 '  I  apprehend  riot.  l|  believe  that  -the  Court  are 
not  prepared  to  regard  this. 'witness  as  perjurjed,  on  such  grounds. as  have 
been  presented  4>y  the  learned  Counsel  on  the  opposite  side.  All  argu- 
ment founded  oii  t,he  mere  improbability  of  'the  act,  is!  destroyed  when  the 
fact  is  proved  by  competent,  and  credible  witnesses.  • 

But  the  sister 'of  the1  lady  went  down  stairs -in  accordance  with  her  -re- 
quest, and  found  the  Bishop  _m , the  parlor  standing  at- the  centre-table,  with 
a. book  in  -his  ha'hd.'  He  immediately  on  seeing  her,  -with  that  politeness. 
which  is  characteristic^  of  him,-  took  her  hand  and  seated  her  on  the  sofa. 
After  sitting  there' for  a  short  time,  he.  committed  upon  her  also  the  indig- 
nity which  she  describes.  She  removed  herself  to  the'  other  endof-the  so- 
fa, and  he  followed  her  and  .repeated  the  indignity.  Footsteps  were  heard 
on  the  stairs  ;  and  then-,  accioraing  to  her  statement,  the  Bishop  sprang  to 
the  other  end  oftthb  sofa.  Afterwards,  at  the  dinnetvtable,  it  appears  that 
both  the  ladies  behaved  with  such  coolness '.  and  reserve  to  the  Bishop,  that 
it  was  the  subject  of-  remai-k.  However,  -they  undoubtedly  treated  him 
with  the  coiirtesjy  that  #.  guest  at  their  table  required.  After  dinner  the' 
company  retired!  to  the 'drawing-room,  and  there,  on- Miss  Jane's  going  to 
the  window  for  the  purpose  '-of  seeing  whether  it  had_  ceased  raining-,  find 
haying  lifted  up? the  blind,  the  Bishop  followed  her  and  committed  another 
indignity.  Well,. this  also  the; Counsel  represents  as  improbable.  I  ad- 
mit it.  But  I  ask,  is.  if  not  sworn  to  by  a  witness  fqlly  entitled  to*  belief'? 
•Is  it  to  be  admitted  that  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  can  commit  all  sorts  of 


indecencies  and  crimes  with  impunity,  and  only  feel  obliged  to  offer  the 
defence  that  it  is  improbable  .that  a  Bishop  codd  be  guilty"  of  such  offences 
in  order  to  be  at  once  acquitted  ? 

But  it  is  said  that  the  testimony  of  these  two  witnesses,  i?  shaken  by  that 
of  the  RCT.  Mr.  Dowdney.  He  has  atteniptedtto 'show  tfiat  the  conduct  of 
these  two  ladies  towards  the  Bishop  a  year  afterwards  W  entirely  incon- 
sistent •with- the  facts  alleged  by  them.  Now  how  stands'  this  ?  Mr^  Dowd- 
ney  is  brought  here  Tor  the  purpose  of  sustaining* :.the  Bjjshop,  and  I  ask 
whether,  under  the  circumstances,  he  comes  ^ith  a*  clasrq  to •  full  credit, 
-when  he  diff.-rs  from  a  witness  as  respectable  as  himself? ;  Is  he  an  indif- 
ferent witness  ?  Has. he  not  lent. himself  for  the*  purpose  of  sustaining  this 
defence  ?  He  admits  that  he  has  been  running  to  Dr>  Seabury  and  other?, 
and  consulting  with  Counsel., -for  the  purpose  of"  preparing  this  defence;  that 
he  consulted  Mir.  Graham  sLs  weeks  ago.  J  ' 

[Bishop  WHiTTrNGH^iM. — No,  that  is  not  the^vfdanee.'   ] 

Mr.  CLARKE. — I  think: it  is;  he  said  he  had  consulted  Mr.  Graham  six 
weeks  ago,  and  that  gentleman  said  he  knew  nothing  about  it  till  within 
about  the  last- three  or  four  weeks,  Mr.  Dowdney  says—  i- 

Bishop  Li .. — I  should  like  that  point  looked. into  before  the  Counsel  pro- 
ceeds further. 

Bishop  WHITTIXGH A.M.— The  testimony  is  tfiat  he 'had  ?"  consulted  -Mr, 
Graham  and  others,  within  a-monthor  six  weeks."'] . 

Mr.  CLABKE  proceeded, — I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  Mn.  Bowdney's  in-- 
tenlion  was  to  swear  falsely  j  I  only  sa^  that  he  swears  carelessly,  and  that 
he  comes  before  the  Court  under  such  circumstances  as  to  nbake  it  apparent 
that  he  is  willing  to  forget  things  that  operate  te  the  prejudice  of  the  cause 
he  undertook  to  sustain,  while  he  recollects  minutely  every  thing  that  favors 
the  defence. 

[Bishop  WHiirrxGHjiM. — As  the  character  of  a  witness-  is  concerned,  I 
wish  to  know  if  the  Counse]  means  to  say  that  the  -jiritness*  testified  that  he 
consulted  Mr.  Graham  six  weeks  ago  ? 

Mi-.-  CLARKE.— -Yes,' sir. 

;  Bishop  WHITTIXGHAM. — Then  it  is  not  so  in  the  minutes.     He  says  that 
he  '•  saw  Mr.  Graham  and  others  within  a  month  crisis  weeks." 

Mr.  CLABKE. — Well,  I  am  willing  to  take  it  that  way — the  difference  la 
'.'  slight.  ... 

fiishop  IVES. — That,  however,  does  pot  exactly  mean  that  he  Saw  Mr. 
Graham  six  weeks  ago. 

Mr.  CLARKE. — Why,  it  probably  may  be  taken  to  mean  fhat  he  saw  him 
five  weeks  ago  ;  that  is  the  usual  inference  drawn  from  an  expression  of 
that  kind — aad  evert  four  weeks  ago  '-Mr.  Graham,  knewj  nothing  of  this 
case.] 

Mr.  CLARKE  proceeded. — But  then  Mr.  Don  dney  attempts  to  show  the  in- 
consistency of  those  ladies  by  their 'subsequent  conduct  towards  the  Bishop. 
WelL  how  was  that  ?  -  The  young  ladies  agreed,  perfectly  "wfch  Mr.  Dowdney 
in  the  main  particulars  of  that  interview'.  They  met  the  Bishop  in  a  friendly 
manner.  They  never  intended  tor  make  this  case  fl»e  subject  of  a  publicr 
charge  against  the  Bishop.  They » were  females  ;.lhey  knew  nothing  of 
the  Bishop's  conduct  anterior-  to  this  :  they  did  not.  know  but  this  was  the 
only  case  of  the  kind  :  they  were  not  swilling  to  place  themselves-  in  the 
awful  position  of  sole  accusers  of  their  Bishop,  and  had  marked  out  a  line 
of  conduct  precisely  like  that  of  Mr.  and  Mrs,  Butler.  What  is  their  own 


204 

account  of  that  interview  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Dowdney?  They  state  that 
when  the  Bishop  entered  the  church  they  were  engaged  in  teaching  their 
classes  in  pews,  and  that  the  Bishop  came  up  and  was  introduced  to  them, 
as  Jane  says,  by  Mr.  Dowdney — Mr.  Dowdney  says  there  was  no  intro- 
duction. Now  I  think  the  probability  of  the  case  is  in  favor  of  the  Misses 
Rudderow.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Dowdney  would  naturally 
introduce  the  Bishop^  and  then  that  they  spoke  to  him  and  entered  into 
conversation  with  him,  and  that  he  made  inquiries  about  the  scholars,  and 
stayed  there  so  long  as  to  teach  the  children  the  collect  for  the  day.  Now 
Mr.  Dowdney  says  nothing  about  the  Bishop's  teaching  the  children  the 
collect  for  the  day,  but  states  that  the  whole  time  spent  in  the  church  was 
occupied  in  conversation  with  the  ladies.  Very  probably  the  Bishop  entered 
into  conversation  with  .the  children  and  taught  them  the  collect  of  the  day, 
but  this  Mr.  Dowdney  did  not  notice,  or  does  not  remember.  He  said  also 
that  the  ladies  were  sitting  in  the  middle  of  the  passage,  and  thaMhe  Bishop 
had  to  go  very  near  them  in  order  to  get  to  the  chancel.  But  on  the  next 
day  Mr.  Dowdney  comes  forward  and  states  that  his  memory  had  failed 
him  on  this  point,  and  that  the  ladies  were  in  their  pews,  precisely  as  they 
themselves  had  stated  ;  sho\ying  that  in  this  instance,  at  least,  the  memory 
of  the  ladies  was  more  faithful  than  his.  And  I  ask  you  whether  that  fact 
alone  does  not  show  conclusively,  that  you  can  place  greater  reliance  on  the 
testimony  of  these  ladies  than  on  that  of  Mr.  Dowdney  ? 

But  is  not  this  discrepancy  between  the  ladies  and  Mr.  Dowdney  a  very 
trivial  matter  on  which  to  base  an  argument  ?  The  ladies  had  never  re- 
lated this  story  to  Mr.  Dowdney,  consequently  they  did  not  on  this  occasion 
exhibit  any  coolness  or  reserve  towards  the  Bishop,  which  could  have  ex- 
cited the  attention  of  their  pastor,  and  which  would  inevitably  have  led  to 
that  explanation  which  they  were  determined  to  avoid.  The  same  expla- 
nation is  perfectly  satisfactory  as  to  the  conduct  of  one  of  the  young 
ladies  in  meeting  the -Bishop  as  she  came  dow,n  from  the  organ-loft.  We 
are  perfectly  ready  to  admit  that  the  Bishop  was  treated  with  civility 
there  also;  but,  as  Ihave  shown,  there  is  nothing -.whatever  inconsistent 
in  that,  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  the  other  witnesses.  Mr.  Dowdney 
states  that  Miss  Riker  was  present  on  this .  occasion.  We  have  made 
every  exertion  to  induce  her  to  appear  here,  but  we  have  failed.  Why 
does  she  not  appear?  I  can. find  another  reason  th'an  the  unwillingness 
of  her  brother.  Mr.  Dowdney  is  still  the  pastor  of  Miss  Riker.  She  is  a 
communicant  of  his  church  at  this  very  hour,  and  if  she  were  here,  it 
would  be  either  to  convict  Mr.  Dowdney  or  the  Misses  Rudderow  of,  I 
will  not  say  perjury,  but  of  some  mistake  about  this. matter. 

Mr.  Dowdney  comes  here  evidently  with  the  most  friendly  feelings 
towards  the  accused.  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  demonstrate  that  he  also 
comes  with  the  sentiment  -of  hostility  to  the  young  ladies.  It  appears 
that  they  and  he  had  some  difference  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  church 
by  a  benevolent  society.  He  had  very  high  notions  about  the  sanctity  of 
a  church,  and  believed  that  it  ought  not  to  be  used  for  any  other  purposes 
than  those  of  divine  worship  ;  and  although  the  ladies  solicited  the  use  of  it 
for  the  holiest  of  purposes,  he  would  not  grant  it  to  them.  He  would  have 
you  to  infer  that  Miss  Jane  Rudderow  said  she  would  go  to  the  Bishop  and 
see  if  he  would  not  grant  her  the  use  of  the  -church.  Now,  is  that  true  ? 
They  have  produced  Miss  Rutter,  of  whom  Mr.  Dowdney  had  spoken, 
and  sjie  says  that  she  herself  made  the  proposition,  and  told  Mr.  Dowdney 


205 

and  Miss  Jane  Rudderbw,  that  she  didn't  care — she  would  appeal  to  tne 
Bishop,  and  that  then  Miss  Jane  Rudderbw  said  she  would  accompany  her. 
This  led  to  the  inquiry  if  she  was  acquainted  with  the  Bishop,  to  which  sire 
replied,  that  she  was  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  him.  Well,  that  was  true  ; 
she  had  been  a  member  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  and  had  been  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Bishop  for  many  years;  she  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
conversing  with  him,  and  might  with  just  propriety  say  that  she  was  on 
terms  of  intimacy  with  him.  There  was  nothing  whatever  inconsis- 
tent in  her  offering  to  accompany  the  other  lady  to  the  Bishop  for 
the  purpose  of  soliciting  the  use  of  the  church.  The  opposite  Coon- 
sel  say  that  it  is  very  improbable  that  she  would  offer  to  go  fo  the 
Bishop  after  the  indignity  she  described  ;  but  this  has  already  been  ex- 
plained, and  shown  to  be  perfectly  consistent  with  the  line  of  conduct  she 
had  marked  out  for  herself;  and  if  such  an  argument  as  that  is  to  prevail, 
which  is  so  repeatedly  urged,  and  which  is  based  upon  mere  improbability, 
then  there  is  an  end  of  all  truth  and  justice.  This  Court  must  be  governed 
by  those  principles  of  confidence  in  the  honesty  and  integrity  of  uni no- 
peached  witnesses,  which  prevail  in  every  court  of  justice. 

But  how  did  the  Bishop  regard  the  application  for  the  use  of  the 
church  ?  Why.  in  a  more  sensible  light  than  Mr.  Dowdney,  and  he 
at  once  acceded  to  the  request  of  the  ladies.  And  we  find  that  this 
Mr.  Dowdney,  who  had  such  a  nice  sense  of  propriety,  and  who 
was  so  particularly  desirous  of  preserving  the  church  from  any  sac- 
rilesious  use.  was  yet  quite  willing  that  these  young  ladies,  his  pa- 
rishioners, and  communicants  of  his  church,  should  go  to  a  common 
tavern,  well  known  to  all  who  are  familiar  with  the  localities  of  the 
island.  But  he  said  he  offered  them  another  place,  which  was  an  unoc- 
cupied building.  This  was  on  the  ninth  of  December,  the  coldest  season 
of  the  year — a  very  liberal  offer  indeed.  These  were  all  the  accommo- 
dations which  the  scrupulous  Mr.  Dowdney  offered  to  these  young  ladies; 
and  because  they  would  not  accept  it,  he  has  probably  entertained  senti- 
ments of  hostility  towards  them  from  that  time  till  the  present.  They  after- 
wards quit  his  church.  Whether  that  operated  as  an  additional  cause 
of  hostility  it  is  not  for  me  to  say.  But  those  are  the  circumstances  in 
which  he  comes  here  to  testify.  He  told  us  that  he  had  been  to  see  Mr. 
Alvord,  one  of  his  parishioners,  who  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  inter- 
view between  the  Bishop  and  Miss  R..  and  that  he  would  come  to  con- 
firm his  evidence.  Has  Mr.  Alvord  come  forward?  Has  he  not  avoided 
us  entirely  ?  Have  I  not  a  right  to  draw  the  inference  that  Mr.  Alvord, 
on  recollection,  found  that  he  could  not  sustain  Mr.  Dowdney  ? 

I  shall  not  dwell  longer  on  the  testimony  of  these  young  ladies.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  to  stand  unimpeached  and  unimpeachable.  They  have  sworn 
to  facts,  improbable  I  admit,  because  facts  affecting  so  seriously  the  moral 
character  of  a  man  holding  such  a  station,  must  always  appear  improba- 
ble— but  they  are  facts  well  established,  and  entitled  to  full  belief  upon 
even'  principle  of  evidence  that  properly  governs  the  minds  of  men. 

I  corno  now  to  the  last  case  mentioned  in  the  presentment,  which 
is  that  of  Mrs.  Beare.  I  shall  not  go  over  the  details  of  that  case, 
showing  the  outrageous  indignity  offered  to  her;  the  Counsel  himself 
concedes  that,  if  true,  it  was  one  of  the  most  atrocious  acts  that 
could  be  committed  by  any  man.  We  have  not  then  to  go  into  any 
discussion  as  to  the  criminality  and  enormitv  of  that  act.  The  Counsel 


.206 

•.has  hknself  conceded  that  If  .guilty  «eif  such,  an  act,  the  Bishop- must  be  re- 
garded as  disqualified  for  the  office  he  holds. .  TJie.only.questioh,  therefore, 
,is,  is  the  testimony  of  ihe  witness  true -? 

'  •  J.beg  the  members  of  the  Court,  then,  to  refer,  to  the  testiraoriy.of  Mrs. 
,  Be'ane,  and  to;her  manner  of  givhxa.it..    There  sat  that  lady  under  the  ex- 
amination of  the  Counsel  and  the  Court  for  near  six  hoars.     Is  there  any 
part,  qf  her  •  testimony  that  iS'not  perfectly  consistent  with  itself-^-that  is  of 
itself  inconsistent  with  the  statement  ..which  she  had- previously  made  1     Mrs. 
..Beare  states  the  indignity.    !•  wiiLnotgo  into  the  details-r-they  must  be  fresh 
In.tbe' recollection,  of  all— they  can not  soon  be  forgotten  by  any  who  heard 
.them-?     HOW. do  the  Counsel  attem.pt;  to  get  rid  of  it  ?     It  is  sworn  to  by 
the:wifeof  a -clergyman  of  the  church,  (she  herself  a  communicant,)  stating 
,  all  the  particulars,  minutely  ;an.d.  in  detail.     I  ask  you  how  is  it  to  be  got 
ritl.pf?     The:  Counsel  resorts  to  the  same  course  of  argument   as  in   the 
'other  cases.     The;  story  -is,  .he  says',  "improbable;"  and.  he  also  alleges 
that  it  is  inconsistent  with  her  subsequent  conduct. 

,  As. to  the  improbability  of. Mrs.  Be'are's  statement,  I  will  not  recur  to  the 
Argument  I  have  repeatedly  urged  in  reply.  If  I  have  not  already  shown, 
I. need. not  attempt  again  to  show,  that  this  argument,  founded  on  improba- 
bility, is  a  complete  non  sequtiur,  and  cannot  for  a  moment  be  entertained 
in  opposition  to  direct  and  unimpeaehed  testimony.  Then  as  to  the  argu- 
ment that  her  subsequent  conduct  was  contradictory  of  her  statement,  let 
jne  ask,  what  was  that  conduct?  It  seems  that  on  one  occasion  she  met 
the  Bishop  at  Dr..  Schroeder's  house,  a  year  after  the  transaction,  and  her 
statement  is,  that  she  was  leddntp  the  parlor  by  Dr.  Schroeder,  and  there 
saw  the  Bishop  engaged  in  conversation  with  Dr..Wainwright,  and  that  she 
bowed' to  him,  giving  the  usual,  salutation,  and  passed  on  without  a  single 
word'beiijg  exchanged  between  them,  or  jf  any  thing  was  said,  it  was  the 
ordinary  salutation.  .  She  passed  on  into  another  part  of  the  building,-  with 
&  friend  who  was  desirous.of  inspecting  the  establishment ;  and  that  sub- 
sequently she  met  the  Bishop  in  the  chapel,  and  there  Mr.  Beare,  who  was 
to  be.  ordained  by  him  next  day,  told  the  Bishop  that  he  expected  him  to 
dine  with  him  the  next  day.  Mrs.  Beare  is  then  put  under  a  rigid  cross- 
examination,  which  lasted  for  hours.  She  was  asked,  if  the  invitation  to 
dine  was  not  pressed  upon  the  Bishop,  and  if  he  did  not  plead  a  previous 
engagement  ?  She  did  not  recollect  that ;  but  if  it  did  take  place,  if  the 
Bishop  did  mention  to  her  husband  that  he  had  a  previous  engagement  with' 
Mr.  Franklin,  is  the  mere  circumstance  of  its  not  being  recollected  by  Mrs/. 
Beare,  (or  perhaps  not  heard  by  her,)  to  be  the  foundation  qf  an  argument 
for  impugning  her  testimony  on  oath  ?  For  the  purpose  of  contradicting 
her,  Dr.  Schroeder  is  introduced.  Now  the  story  that  he  relates  is  this — 
that  he  found  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  in  the  garden — that  he  took  them  to  the 
green-house,  and  presently  inquired  if  they  would  not  be  presented  to  the 
Bishop  ?  Well,  that  appears  to  me  an  extraordinary  proposition.  It  is  not 
for  me  to  say  that  it  is  not  perfectly  true >  I  only  say  that  it  strikes  me  as  a 
most  extraordinary  proposition,  when  we  consider  that  he  was  .aware  of 
their  being  well  acquainted  with  the  Bishop,  and  that  they  expected  to  meet 
him.  Had  he  informed  them  of  the  Bishop  being  in  the  house,  and  asked 
them  if  they  did  not  wish  to  go  in  and  meet  him,  the  statement  would  ap- 
pear probable  and  natural  ;  but  that  he  should  ask  these  two  individuals  if 
they  would  not  be  presented  to  the  Bishop^  appears  very  strange  to  me,  al- 
though it  may  be  in  accordance  with  the  etiquette  which  prevails  among 


the  clergy.  He  then  states  that  he  went  into  the  house,  and  found  the  Bishop 
in  the  front  parlor,  and  that  he  presented  Mrs.  Beare  and  afterwards  Miss 
Strong.  This  is  the  statement  he  gives,  and  that  on  that  occasion  their 
greeting  was  friendly  and  cordial.  When  Mr.  Schroeder  comes  to  be  cross- 
examined,  he  cannot  state  what  Mrs.  Beare  said,  or  that  she  exchanged  a 
single  word  with  the  Bishop.  The  greeting  was  cordial — and  yet  cordial 
as  it  was.  he  could  not  recollect  whether  a  word  was  uttered  by -M rs.  Beare  ! 
He  cannot  say  that  she  even  shook  hands  with  the  Bishop.  Now,  is  the 
Court  prepared,  on  testimony  like  that,  to  say  that  the  statements  of  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Beare  are  untrue  ?  Are  they  prepared  to  say,  because  Mr. 
Schroeder  chose  to  construe  the  conduct  of  Mrs.  Beare  as  being  cordial 
towards  the  Bishop,  that  therefore  her  testimony  is"  not  to  be  credited  ?  I 
am  satisfied  the  Court  will  never  come  to  such  a  conclusion.  Dr.  Schroe- 
der says  that  he  went  down  to  Mr.  Beare's  house  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
freshing their  memory  and  his  own;  and  yet  he  afterwards,  in  a  subse- 
quent part  of  his  testimony,  states  that  he  recollected  all  these  circum- 
stances perfectly  well.  Why,  then,  did  he  go  down  there  for  the  pjurpose 
of  refreshing  his  memory  ?  Was  it  not  for  the  purpose  of  having  some 
conversation  with  them  which  he  might  make  use  of  here  as  a  witness  for 
the  defence?  On  the  day  succeeding  that  on  which  this  visit  was  made, 
he  came  to  the  city,  and  communicated,  as  he  tells  us,  all  he  heard  to  the 
Bishop.  A  witness  pursuing  that  line  of  conduct,  in  our  courts  of  law,  is 
not  very  favorably  regarded.  How  such  testimony  may  be  viewed  here, 
it  is  not  for  me  to  say.  Then  it  was  attempted  to  show  that  the  conduct  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  was  inconsistent  with  the  main  fact  when  they  met  the 
Bishop  in  the  vestry-room.  And  they  have  produced  testimony  pn  that 
point.  Now  Dr.  McVickar  and  the  Bishop's  sorts  were  also  present  on  that 
occasion,  but  the  only  witnesses  produced  are  Dr.'  Schroeder,  Mr.  Goodwin, 
and  Mr.  Sweetzer ;  both  of  the  latter  gentlemen  think  that  the  greeting 
was  cordial,  and  yet  both,  when  put  under  cross-examination,  cannot  recol- 
lect that  Mrs.  Beare  said  one  word — they  don't  even  know  whether  she 
shook  hands  with  the  Bishop.  Is  not  this  extraordinary — that  they  should 
say  the  greeting  was  cordial,  and  yet  cannot  describe  any  thing  of  its  char- 
acter ?  How  do  you  reconcile  that  with  the  known  character  of  these  gen- 
tlemen ?  They  were  prepared  to  expect  that  every  one  should  meet  the 
Bishop  with  cordiality.  Mrs.  Beare  did  not  intend  to  be  marked  in  her 
coldness  towards  the  Bishop,  and  hence  the  witnesses  (not  noticing  any 
coldness)  chose  to  call  her  conduct  cordial. 

Then  in  regard  to  Mr.  Goodwin's  meeting  Mr.  Beare  on  board  the  steam- 
boat ;  it  appears  that  Mr.  Beare  was  reading  the  Protestant  Churchman, 
which  elicited  some  remonstrance  from  Mr.  Goodwin,  and  In  reply  to  which 
Mr.  Beare.  spoke  of  the  Bishop  in  terms  of  kindness,  and  hoped  that  he 
would  not  be  offended  at  his  taking  that  paper — and  that  is  all  that  is  said 
about  it.  Well,  then,  it  appears  that  Mr.  Sweetzer  and  Mr.  Goodwin  dined 
with  the  Bishop  at  Mr.  Beare's  house  on  the  day  of  the  ordination.  How 
could  Mr.  Beare  do  otherwise  than  invite  the  Bishop  to  dine  at  his  house 
on  that  occasion,  being  the  day  of  his  ordination  to  the  priesthood  ?  If  he 
had  not  extended  that  invitation  to  the  Bishop,  his  conduct  would  have  ne- 
cessarily excited  remark,  and  that  he  was  determined  to  avoid.  He  was 
determined  to  act  with  civility  towards  the  Diocesan — and  why  ?  He  had 
committed  his  grievances  to  four  respectable  clergymen  of  this  city,  and 
within  a  week  after  the  transaction.  .  They  did  not  think  proper  to  proceed 


208 

with  the  matter.  He  had  done  what  a  prudent  man  should  have  done. 
He  had  intrusted  the  matter  to  the  hands  of  these  older  clergymen,  and  as 
they  did  not  see  fit  to  proceed  in  it,  he  resolved  to  pursue  that  line  of  con- 
duct towards  the  Bishop  which  the  testimony  describes. 

Again,  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  Mrs.  Beare  towards  the  Bishop  when 
at  her  house,  she  states  that  she  did  not  enter  into  conversation  with  him, 
merely  offering  him  the  dishes  on  the  table,  and  treating  him  with  the  or- 
dinary courtesy  that  is  extended  to  a  guest  at  table.  Now,  Mr.  Goodwin 
thought  that  she  did  converse  with  the  Bishop  at  table,  but  Mr.  Sweetzer 
sustains  Mrs.  Beare ;  he  could  not  recollect  any  conversation  between 
them,  except  that  of  the  ordinary  courteous  intercourse  of  the  dinner-table. 
It  certainly  does  appear  to  me  that  the  evidence  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare,  as 
to  their  conduct  towards  the  Bishop  on  the  occasion  spoken  of,  is  not  only 
not  shaken,  but  rather  confirmed  by  the  very  witnesses  brought  to  im- 
pugn it. 

We  now  come  to  the  interview  at  the  Bishop's  house,  on  which  I  intend 
to  be  yery  brief.  It  appears  that  Mr.  Beare,  feeling  himself  very  much 
aggrieved  by  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  towards  his  wife,  communicated 
the  matter  to  Mr.  Kerfoot,  a  professor  at  Dr.  Muhlenberg's  establishment ; 
and  so  important  did  Mr.  K.  view  the  matter,  that  he  proposed  that  they 
should  go  to  prayer  on  the  occasion,  and  ask  for  guidance  from  above. 
They  did  so,  and  after  that  was  over,  Mr.  K.  said  he  would  communicate 
the  matter  to  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  and  ask  his  advice.  He  did  communicate 
it  accordingly.  Dr.  Muhlenberg  sent  for  Mr.  Beare,  heard  his  story,  took 
minutes  of  it,  and  immediately  came  to  town  and  consulted  Drs.  Milnor, 
Wainwright,  and  Higbee,  and  the  result  was  a  united  determination  to  call 
upon  the  Bishop.  Dr.  Milnor  has  testified  to  what  took  place  on  that  oc- 
casion in  the  Bishop's  study ;  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  partly  from  his  minutes, 
and  partly  from  memory,  related  the  whole  story.  What  was  the  con- 
duct of  the  Bishop  ?  He  gave  the  whole  story  an  unqualified  denial.  I 
ask  the  Court  to  recollect  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Milnor  and  Dr.  Muhlenberg 
en  this  point.  Well,  they  thought  it  an  extraordinary  thing  that  the  wife 
of  a  clergyman  of  the  church  should  prefer  such  a  charge  against  the  Dio- 
cesan, and  that  there  should  not  be  the  slightest  foundation  for  it.  They 
asked  the  Bishop,  or  it  was  suggested  that  Mr.  Beare  should  be  called  in 
and  confronted  with  the  Bishop.  Mr.  Beare  was  sent  for,  and  all  the 
clergymen  who  were  present  on  the  occasion  just  now  alluded  to,  with  the 
exception  of  Dr.  Wainwright,  accompanied  him  to  the  Bishop's.  Imme- 
diately on  their  entering,  the  Bishop  asked  them  to  walk  into  a  back  room, 
the  door  of  which  he  immediately  closed,  and  then  taking  Mr.  Beare's  hand, 
expressed  himself  in  the  strongest  terms  of  kindness  and  affection,  and  re- 
gretted that  any  thing  should  have  occurred  to  wound  the  feelings  of  Mrs. 
Beare  or  of  himself.  Mr.  Beare  was  not  satisfied  with  that  kind  of  ex- 
planation ;  he  put  the  question  to  the  Bishop  more  than  once — "  Bishop 
Onderdonk,  do  you  intend  to  deny  the  statement  made  by  my  wife  ?"  He 
said,  in  reply,  "  I  do  not  deny  it,  but  she  misconstrued  my  motives."  Mis- 
construed his  motives  !  Why,  what  motive  could  he  have  had  for  putting 
his  hand  into  the  bosom  of  another  man's  wife  ?  Misconstrued  his  motives  ! 
The  idea  is  an  absurdity.  Mr.  Beare  puts  it  to  him  again — "  do  you  deny 
the  facts  ?"  "  No,"  says  he,  "  but  she  misconstrued  my  intentions."  The 
Bishop  appeared  to  be  very  much  affected  and  burst  into  tears — stated  that 
he  had  great  affection  and  regard  for  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare — and  was  willing 


209 

to  make  any  apology  to  Mr.  B.  that  might  be  satisfactory  to  him  and  his 
wife.  What !  willing  to  make  an  apology  to  the  man  who  had  falsely  and 
calumniously  accused  him  of  such  gross  misconduct  ?  Recollect,  that^at 
this  time  the  full  particulars  of  the  charge  had  been  communicated  to  him. 
If  untrue,  would  he  not  have  demanded  an  apology  from  Mr.  Beare  and 
his  wife,  for  the  gross  slander  which  they  had  uttered  against  him  ?  But 
he  does  not  ask  any  such  thing.  Ho  bursts  into  tears,  wrings  the  hand  of 
Mr.  Beare,  and  expresses  his  willingness  to  make  an  apology.  Is  that  the 
conduct  of  an  innocent  man  ?  Judge  ye  !  Then  it  was  that  after  they  left 
the  presence  of  the  Bishop,  Dr.  Higbee  said  to  Dr.  Milnor — "  what  a  lie 
he  told  !"  I  ask  the  Court  to  remember  that  extraordinary  observation.  Is 
it  not  evident  that  the  impression  had  been  made  on  Dr.  Higbee's  mind,  (as 
it  had  been  on  Dr.  Milnor's,)  that  the  Bishop  had  retracted  his  denial  of  the 
preceding  interview,  and  that  he  now  admitted  what  he  had  denied  the  day 
before  ?  Can  that  observation  be  explained  in  any  other  way  ?  The  Coun- 
sel very  ingeniously  labored  to  get  rid  of  this  remark.  His  anxiety  to- 
gloss  it  over  evinced  how  well  he  was  aware  of  its  effect.  But  in  his  la- 
borious effort  to  get  rid  of  it  he  signally  failed. 

Well,  these  clergymen,  after  leaving  the  Bishop's  house,  walked  up  to 
the  corner  of  Franklin  street  and  Broadway,  talking,  no  doubt*  of  this  sub- 
ject, and  when  they  got  there  Dr.  Higbee  addressed  Mr.  Beare,  and  said — 
"  Mr.  Beare,  you  have  shown  very  great  forbearance  ;  had  it  been  my  case 
— had  such  an  indignity  been  offered  to  my  wife,  I  would  have  kicked  him 
out  of  the  house."  Dr.  Higbee  does  not  now  recollect  these  extraordinary 
observations,  and  we  are  bound  to  believe  him.  But  still  they  were  made, 
as  has  been  proved  by  Dr.  Milnor,  and  I  cannot  but  say  that  this  failure  of 
memory  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Higbee  appears  most  extraordinary!  Dr.  Higbee 
does  not  pretend  to  deny  that  he  made  such  a  remark  :  he  only  says  that  he 
does  not  recollect  it.  He  was,  he  says,  in  a  state  of  great  excitement ;  he 
thought  that  the  Bishop  did  not  behave  with  sufficient  energy.  But  what 
did  the  remark  itself  mean.?  Why,  it  could  only  mean  that  he  was  dis- 
satisfied with  the  gross  inconsistency  of  the  Bishop. 

But  I  find  I  have  occupied  more  of  the  attention  and  time  of  the  Court 
than  I  intended.  I  have  very  little  to  add. 

It  does  appear  to  me  that  if  ever  there  was  a  case  presented  to  any  tri- 
bunal, which  was  proved  beyond  the  possibility  of  contradiction  or  doubt,  it 
is  the  one  now  before  you.  The  facts  charged  are  sworn  to  by  persons 
known  to  you.  As  I  have  stated  in  another  part  of  my  argument,  we  have 
not  gone  into  the  by-ways,  and  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Church,  for  witnesses. 
Every  witness  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution  is  a  member  of  the  Church — 
a  communicant — one  of  the  flock  of  the  party  accused.  If  he  be  con- 
demned, therefore,  it  will  be  on  the  evidence  of  members  of  his  own  flock, 
of  those  who  have  been  brought  up  under  his  own  supervision.  These 
witnesses  came  here  without  any  earthly  motive  inconsistent  with  perfect 
purity  of  intention,  and  a  desire  to  tell  the  truth.  They  are  strangers  to 
each  other,  never  having  met  before.  They  have  given  their  statements 
with  a  degree  of  minuteness  and  straightforwardness,  I  never  saw  equalled 
on  any  otiier  occasion.  Their  evidence  has  been  consistent  throughout,  and 
has  withstood  all  the  attacks  and  subtlety  which  ingenious  Counsel  could 
employ  to  overthrow  it.  The  Counsel  is,  therefore,  driven  to  the  desperate 
resort  of  calling  upon  you  to  regard  them  all  as  perjured,  because  they 
have  related  what  he  terms  "  improbable  stories."  Are  you  prepared  thus- 

27 


.;.   ••.;.:      ••  •          2-10  .    .  • 

'  .to  ^ondemn-the  sons'  and  daughters  of  pur  Churok?  But  if  you.  do  not  so 
regard  them,  if  you  believe,  they  have  stated  the  truth',  then,  I  ask,  has  not 
a  case  been  made  .out' which  calls  for  the  interposition,  of  this  Court,  and  the 
exercise  of  .the.  highest  authority  .of  our'.  Church  ?  . 

in  regard  to  the  .consequences  of  finding-  a  verdict  of  guilty,  it  is  not  for 
me!  to  speal^.  We  are  taught  in  holy  writ,  that  "-it  must  heeds  be  that  of- 
fences, will  cornej  but  wo  unto  that  man :  by  whom  the  offence  cometh." 

';."Il  thine  !ey<5'oflend  thee,"  the  injunction  of  our  Saviour  is,'. "pluck  it 
putj..'r  If  thine  hand  or  foot  offend  thee,  it  is  to  be  'cut 'off  and  cast  from 
theb.  So,  if  a  member  of  .your  .sacred,  body  becomes  corrupt  and  disquali- 
fied! for  performing  .the  office  assigned  him,  he  is  to  be  removed.  The 
operation  may  be  painful,. but  it  is  unavoidable.  Scripture  points  out  the 
renjiedy  :  th.e  Church  demands  it •:•  Religion  requires  it :' Christ  himself  en- 
jbiiis  it.  lf,-tbe.n,  these  charges 'are  true,  we  call'  upon  you,  as  the  great 
conservators  of  religion  a;nd  morality,  to  vindicate  the  purity  of  the  Priest- 
hocjd,  and  to  make  an  example  that  shall  siand  as  a  beacon  in  the  annals  of 
our  Church  in.  all  time  tp  come. 

4lr.  CJ-ARKB  here  concluded  his  argument,  having  spoken  nearly  three 

"hours.     Just  as  he  sat  down—  '• 

.  jJishop  W HITTIBIGHAM:  said — I  have  orie-word  to  ask  the  Counsel.    He  has, 
'•;•  in  .jhe  course  of  his  remarks,  attributed  to  witnesses  statements  which  they 

'ijever  made.     Does  he  desire  that  inaccuracies  be  retained  in  the  report  ? 
*  ?•-•':  Jii\  CLARKE-;-!  am  not  conscious  of  having  stated  any  thing  that  is  not  in 

the  record.     If  I  have,  any  discrepancy  can  be 'corrected. 


At  the  close  of  his  argument  the  Court' adj 
Attest, 

W.  R/ 

'' 


djoumed. 
WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Wednesday,  January  1st,  1845", 

half-past  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 
The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.     Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
.  nois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey, 
the  North  -Western  Missionary  Diocese.,   Louisiana,  Western   New  York, 
Sotith  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ; 
.and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western 
•    .Missionary  Diocese. 

'.  ,  .  The  President  .opened  the .  proceedings'  with'  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

pAvrp  B.  iO&'bex,  EJsq.,.  then. concluded  the  summing  up  of  evi- 
dence in  behalf  of  the  Respondent. 

•  IN  rising  .to  ask  "the  attention  of  the  Court  to  some  observations  on  this 
'  case,  I  feel  myself  much,  embarrassed,  and  indeed  almost  overwhelmed  with 
the?  great  solemnity  of  this  tribunal..  For  the  first  lime,  I  stand  before-th'e 
highest  ecclesiastical  tribunal  of  the  Church  to  which  I  belong  ;  composed 
of  the  fathers  of  .that  Church  in  which  I  was  baptized  in  my  earliest  infancy. 
and  in  which  I  have  been  a  communicant  for  many  years.'.  It  is  the  .Church 
that  of  all  -things  on  this  earth  I  most -love,  and  in  whose  peace,  prosperity, 
and  unity,  I  feel  an  interest  which  I  am  utterly  unable  to  describe.  I  stand, 

•/•  :"  •;•:.*:  ;.  . 


then,  before  this  awful  tribunal  to  defend  one  of,  your  brethren^-fl.  rrmn  w^o" 
has  hitherto  sustained  ki  this  community  a  reputatiop  unimpeached  a'nd  up-- 
suspected — w-ho-has  in  this,  the  largest  Diocese  in  these  United.  States,  en- 
joyed, and  still-  continues  to  enjoy,:  the  affection  of  the  clergy  and  the  people 
almost  to  an  unlimited  extent:  I  may  then,  surely,  well  say  that  I  feel 
almost  overwhelmed,  when  I  consider  the  .importance  of  the  case>  and  tfce 
solemnity  of  the  tribunal  in  whose  presence  I  appear..  I  do^  with,  fell  sin- 
cerity and  reference^  declare,  that  I  now  regard  myself  speaking,  as  lit 
were,  in  the  particular-presence  ot  my  God ;  ;and  bound,- therefore,  by  every 
consideration, -to  say  not  one. word :that  I  do"  not  .think  justified  by  the  eVi- 
.dence  before  me,  and  called  for  by  my  duty  to  myself.  .  . 

May  it  please  the  Court,  .if-  I  know  any  thing  of  my  own  heart,  if  I  am 
any  judge  of  my  own  feelings,  I  wish  not  to  protect  the  'guilty,  nor  to'  inter- 
pose any  shield  between  justice  and  its  victim.  If  I  had  believed  that  the 
evidence  in  this  case  was  such  as.to  have  justified  -a  conviction  of.  the  Re- 
spondent, I  shbuld  have  proposed  to  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side  to  submit 
the  case  to  the  Court  without  argument,  and  without  a  single  observation  on 
the  part  of  Counsel.  But -after  having  given -this  evidence  the  most  calm 
and  deliberate!  Consideration  which  God  has  "enabled  me  to  bestow  upon  ;it, 
bringing  to  bear  upon  it  the  professional  experience  of  now  nearly,  fifty 
years,  I  have  arrived  at  the  decided  conclusion  that  there  is' no  evidence  in 
this  case  that  caft  justify '.this  Coufrt,  or  any  Coort,  or  -any  jury  on.  earth,  ia 
finding  a  verdict  against  my  client.  And  feeling  this  conviction  most 
strongly,  I  shbuld  regard  myself  as  abandoning  my  duty  to  myself-*— to  .the* 
honored  gentleman  whom  I  defend — to  the  Church— and .  to  the  sacred 
cause,  of  justice,  if  I  did  not  make  an  effort, 'however  feeble  and  unavailing 
it  may  be,  to  bring  the  minds  of  this  Court  to  the  same  conclusion  toVhicb  I 
have  myself  arrived.  •  .  •'.-••'..  - 

In-  the  observations  which  I  intend  to  make  to  the 'Court,  I  shall  be  jas 
brief  as  I  think  the  nature  of  the  case  and  my  duty  require.  I  am  not  in 
.the  habit  of  making,  very  long  speeches,  and  I  certainly  shall  avoid  a  long 
speech  on  the;  present  occasion  ;  and  I  shall  not,  therefore,  if  I  possibly  csan 
•avoid  it,  repeat  any  of  ,the  observations  made  by  my  associate  Counsel,  not 
only  because  I  would  thus  unnecessarily  occupy  your  time,  but' also,  Be- 
cause, in  goi^gover  that  grpund,  I  am  satisfied  I  shall  rather  weaken-  than 
strengthen  the  argument. '  -.•••' 

The  first  question  to  which  I  beg  to  calt  the  attention  of  the  Gourt,|is, 
what  are  you-.to  try  in- this  Presentment?  This  depends  upon  the  Canon 
and  upon  the -Presentment.  The"  Canon  authorizes  the.  presentment  of  a 
Bishop  for  anjy  crime,  or  immorality,  or  .heresy ;  or  for  the  -violation  of  the 
Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  Church,  or  of  that  branch  of  it  in  the  Dio- 
cese to  which  he  belongs.  .  .Now,  the  Presentment  in  this  case  is  for -no 
crime.  It  is  for  no  heresy.  It  is  for  no  violation  of  the  Canons  'and-  Cpn-  - 
stitution  of  the  Church.  It  is  for -immorality  and  impurity ;  and  lifeless  the 
defendant  can  be  convicted  for  immorality  and  impurity.,  he  must;  be  ac- 
quitted under  this  Presentment'.  r;. 

Now,  if  the  Court  please;  what  is  meant  by  this  charge  of  immorality 
and  impurity  ?  Impurity  and  immorality  existing  twenty  years  ago?  Cer- 
tainly not.  It  means  present  immorality  and  impurity.  It  means  ^.present 
unfitness  to  fill  the  dignified  office  which  he'holds.1  The  Canon  can  mean 
nothing-  else.  Now,  I  ask  this  Court,  is  it  possible  that  they  can  undertake 
to  convict  the  Respondent  here  of  immorality  and  -impurity,  when  the  very 


sisr-  • 

last  transaction  on  which  it  is  pretended  to  ground  the  charge,  occurred  at 
least  two  and  a  half  years  ago  ?  And  it  is  here  particularly  worthy  of  re- 
mark, that  although  every  effort  has  been  made  to  hunt  out  cases  on  which 
to  find  charges  against  the  Bishop,  the  very  latest  that  can  be  brought  for- 
ward dates  two  and  a  half  years  ago.  Such  is  the  evidence  on  which  you 
are  asked  to  find  this  Respondent  guilty — guilty  of  present  immorality 
and  impurity. 

The  Court  will  recollect,  that  when  this  communication  was  made  to  him 
about  this  Mrs.  Beare,  which  is  the  last  transaction  presented,  he  expressed 
great  sorrow  and  regret  that  any  thing  should  have  occurred.  He  was  ad- 
monished by  Dr.  Milnor,  and  from  the  time  that  that  admonition  was  re- 
ceived, he  has  been  as  pure,  for  aught  that  appears  before  this  Court,  as  any 
one  of  the  judges  now  trying  him.  And  I  do  put  it  to  the  Court,  with  the 
utmost  confidence,  that  even  admitting  every  charge  in  this  Presentment  to 
be  proved,  still  not  one  tittle  of  evidence  exists  to  show  that  Bishop  Onder- 
donk  is  not  now  as  pure  and  moral  as  any  man  that  lives.  We  are  all  sinful 
men.  We  are  liable  to  fall.  We  are  all  subject  to  the  infirmities  of  hu- 
man nature.  I  ask,  is  there  a  man  in  this  Court  who  can  say  that  in  the 
whole  course  of  his  life  he  has  never  committed  an  immoral  act  1  Is  there 
a  single  gentleman  who  hears  me,  who  can  undertake  to  say  that  in  the 
course  of  his  life  he  has  never  been  guilty  of  conduct  of  which  he  is  now 
ashamed,  and  which  he  deeply  regrets  ?  If  such  a  man  there  be  among 
you,  let  him  cast  the  first  stone.! 

I  might  here,  in  my  o\vn  judgment,  rest  the  case,  in  the  entire  confidence 
that  an  immorality  committed  two  and  a  half  years  ago  is  not  sufficient  to 
convict  a  man  of  immorality  now.  And,  unless  this  honorable  Court  are 
prepared  to  say  that  it  is  so,  there  is  an  end  of  it  all  ;  because  there  is  not 
the  smallest  proof  of  present  immorality  or  present  impurity.  In  an  ordi- 
nary case,  involving  ordinary  considerations,  I  should  then  be  quite  willing 
to  leave  the  case  here  ;  because  I  think  I  would  leave  it  on  ground  on  which 
I  am  immovable.  It  is  a  rock  on  which  this  defence  can  rest  with  perfect 
safety.  But  inasmuch  as  this  case  is  to  be  decided  by  the  opinions  of  the 
Court,  and  not  by  mine,  and  as  different  minds  may,  and  no  doubt  do,  take 
different  views  of  the  case,  it  is  my  duly  to  proceed  to  the  further  investiga- 
tion of  it.  I  shall  endeavor  to  do  so  in  as  plain  and  intelligible  manner  as  I 
can  adopt. 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  the  evidence  in  detail,  I  am  compelled  to 
express  my  surprise,  and  sorrow,  and  regret,  at  the  manner  in  which  this 
case  has  been  managed  on  the  part  of  the  Presentment.  In  the  opening  argu- 
ment of  my  learned  friend,  there  were  great  professions  of  charity — of  liber- 
ality— of  a  desire  that  the  whole  truth  should  come  out ;  and  yet,  in  every 
stage  of  the  case,  we  have  been  met  by  every  possible  objection  that  the 
ingenuity  of  counsel  could  suggest,  in  order  to  shut  out  the  truth.  I  mean 
not — I  certainly  never  intended  to  cast  any  reflection  on  the  Presenting 
Bishops.  I  have  believed,  and  must  still  believe,  that  they  have  acted  from  a 
solemn  sense  of  duty — a  painful  duty,  as  1  have  no  doubt  they  felt  it;  and  I 
had  supposed  that  if  these  gentlemen  found  that  the  Bishop  ought  not  to-be 
convicted,  they  would  rather  rejoice  than  be  disappointed  at  the  result.  But 
something  fell  from  one  of  the  Presenting  Bishops,  the  other  day,  at  which 
I  was  perfectly  astonished.  He  charged  the  Counsel  of  the  Respondent  with 
suppressing  evidence — with  preventing  them  from  getting  witnesses.  I  ask 
where  is  the  ground  and  foundation  for  such  an  enormous  charge  ?  I 


213 

should  consider  myself  as  guilty,  in  the  highest  degree,  and  as  quite  un- 
worthy of  standing  in  this  Court,  or  any  other,  if  I  could  commit  such  art 
offence  as  the  suppression  of  evidence  in  any  case  whatever.  I  should  have 
passed  over  this  remark,  as  altogether  unworthy  of  notice,  were  it  not  that 
it  shows  the  rancor  with  which  this  prosecution  is  carried  on.  It  is,  indeed, 
quite  significant  on  that  point. 

There  was  another  suggestion,  made  by  the  Counsel  who  addressed  the 
Court  last  evening,  which  commands  a  passing  notice.  He  said  that  the 
good  of  the  Church  required  this  investigation,  and  the  conviction  of  the  Re- 
spondent. I  was  thus  led  to  ask  myself,  is  this  so  ?  Every  man  who  hears 
me  entertains  for  this  Church  the  supremest  regard,  and  if  the  Court  be  once 
persuaded  that  the  "  good  of  the  Church"  demands  the  conviction  of  the  Re- 
spondent, I  ask  what  chance  has  the  Respondent  ?  That  observation  could 
have  been  made  only  for  the  purpose  of  invoking"  your  love  for  the  Church 
against  my  unfortunate  client — a  proceeding,  of  which,  in  my  opinion,  the 
gentleman  ought  to  be  ashamed — an  argument  which  he  never  ought  to  have 
attempted.  May  it  please  the  Court,  this  cry  of  "  the  good  of  the  Church  !'? 
— "  the  good  of  the  Church  !"  has  led  to  the  perpetration  of  more  iniquity 
on  this  earth,  than  has  any  other  appeal  to  the  passions  of  mankind. 

It  was  the.  regard  of  the  Jews  for  their  church  that  induced  fhem  to  call 
out  "  Crucify  him  !  crucify  him  1"  It  was  the  cry  of  "  the  good  of  the 
Church"  that  led  our  blessed  Redeemer  to  the  cross.  It  was  the  cry  of 
"  the  good  of  the  Church"  that  produced  the  martyrdom  of  holy  St.  Stephen. 
it  was  the  cry  of  "  the  good  of  the  Church"  that  led  to  the  establishment 
of  the  Inquisition,  and  all  the  horrors  and  enormities  of  that  accursed  insti- 
tution. The  cry  of  "  the  good  of  the  Church"  has  put  thousands  of  martyrs 
to  death,  and  has,  I  repeat  it,  produced  more  bloodshed,  and  desolation,  and 
cruelty  on  this  earth,  than  any  argument  ever  yet  used  by  man.  Let  it 
not  be  said  that,  in  this  enlightened  day,  there  is  no  danger  from  this  appeal. 
I  tell  you,  Bishops,  that  the  human  heart  is  the  same  in  all  ag.es.  It  is  the 
same  now  that  it  was  in  the  bloodiest  days  of  the  Inquisition — the  same  as 
it  was  when  the  blessed  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Calvary.  Man  is  still 
the  same  being  that  he  was  when  he  was  driven  from  the  gates  of  paradise. 
He  has  the  same  passions — the  same  prejudices — the  same  feelings, — and 
if  you  once  convince  a  Bishop  that  "  the  good  of  the  Church"  requires  the 
conviction  of  the  Respondent,  there  is  imminent  danger  that  he  will  train- 
pie  under  foot  justice,  mercy,  and  truth. 

My  observations  on  this  subject  are  not  now  made  for  the  first  time. 
They  are  the  result  of  dqep-rooted  and  long-cherished  feelings  in  my 
bosom.  They  are  founded  on  history — on  the  history  of  mankind,  during 
all  ages.  Once  actuated  by  this  blind  zeal  for  the  Church,  men  go  on 
headlong1,  conscientiously  believing  that  they  are  right,  but  trampling  under 
their  feet  all  that  is  right.  So  it  was  with  the  Jews.  They  were  zealous 
for  their  ancient  and  beloved  Church.  They  thought  they  were  right,  even 
when  they  were 'nailing  the  Redeemer  to  the  accursed  tree  ;  and  he,  you 
all  recollect,  prayed.  "  Father,  forgive  them,  they  know  not  what  they  do  !" 
He  thus  charged  no  evil  intention  upon  them.  He  knew  that  thoy  acted 
from  motives  which  they  supposed  to  be  good,  and,  therefore,  he  prayed  for 
their  forgiveness,  because  "  they  know  not  what  they  did."  But  will  it 
excuse  the  blind  and  maddened  zealot,  when  he  pleads  that  he  knew  not 
what  he  did  ?  I  beg  the  Court  to  bo  cautious.  Our  Church  is  the  Church 
of  God — that  God  whose  distinguishing  attributes  are  truth,  justice,  and 


214.        .    -.": 

mercy.     The  God  of  the  Church  .can  never  require  that  justice  should  be 
trampled  under  foot,  truth  disregarded,,  and  mercy  forgotten, 

I  do  not  know  that  I  am  called  on  to  say  a  word  more  on. this  .point. 
The  peace  of  the  Church  is  what  you  all  desire  :  it  is  that  which  we  all 
love  and  pray  for.  Has-  it  been  promoted  by  this  .presentment  7  It  is  an 
historical  fact,  of -which  all  the  Bishops,  who  hear  me  must  be -fully  aware, 
that  .for  the  last  two  years,  or  for  nearly-  that  period,  there  has  been  every 
possible  effort  made  in  this  Diocese  to  destroy,  the  Bishop..  .Since  this  spirit, 
went  abroad,  we  have  had  two  Conventions,  and  in  both  he  has  been  sus- 
tained by  majorities  that  were  overwhelming ;.  showing -the  great  confi- 
dence which  .the  Church  reposes  in  Jikn  ;  and  yet,  permit,  me  to  say — be- 
cause I  was  a  member  of  both  these  Conventions,  and  .can;  therefore,-  speak 
with 'some  authority  on  the -subject — thajt  during  the;  whole'' period  of  the 
sessions  of -these  Convention's,  there  -was  not  .a  single  -whisper  of.  these 
charges^— not  one.  Now  I  ask  evecy  member  of. this.  Court,  did  the  peace 
of  the  Church  require  that  these  old, -stale  charges: — charges -which  had 
been  communicated  long  since  to  clergymen,  acte.d  on,  and.  burted  in  o*b- 
Hvion-r^should  be  resuscitated  for-  the  purpose- of  rending  the.  Church  to 
pieces?  I  repeat  it.  Never,  in  the  whole  course:of  this  controversy,  until 
the  meeting  ;of  the  General  Convention  in  Philadelphia,  was  a  single  whis- 
per uttered  ;by  any  human  being,  of  the  existence  of  these  cbarge&v  They  . 
wer.e  entirely  forgotten.  '  They  had  been,  by  -common,  consent,  buried— 
never,  to- make  their  appearance...  And  how  it  .is  possible  that  the  peace  of 
the  Church  qari  be  prompted  by  bringing  these  old  charge^  to  Jife  again-,  I 
am-'  totally  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  .It  is  certainly  .one  way,,  and  .a  most 
extraordinary  way%  of  .preserving  the.  peace  of  the  Church.. 

It-  is  said  that  there  is  a  great  excitement  in -the  Church  .on  this  subject.. 
Permit  me  to  make  a  few  observations  OH  thai'-  point.  I  ne'ver^  heard— rand 
I  presume  on  a  question  of. such  a  public  character  my  .word  will  be  taken 
—rrl  never  heard  of  the  eiistence  of  one  of -these,  chargjes  until' 1  was  leav- 
ing this  city  for  the  purpose  of  attending  the1  late  General'  Convention,  in 
Philadelphia.  When  we!  got  there  we  heard  a  rumof  of  charges  against  the 
Bishop.  I  inquired  what  they  were,  and  then,  for  the  first  time  1  heard. of 
these  matters,  or  some  of  them  at  least.  Agents  were  then  employed  to" 
disseminate  the  rumors,  and  to  collect  charges.  'I  speak  tha,t  from  the 
evidence  in  this  case,  because  it  is-proved  here  f hat  ''Mr.  Richmond  went 
and  obtained  the  depositions  of  the  Misses.  Ruddermv,.  and -that  he  came  on 
here  and  got  those  of  Mr.  and. Mrs.  Beare.  'Here  then  was  a  person  sent 
pn  from  Philadelphia  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  these  old  stories,  and  giv-ing 
them  shape  and  form.  Letters  were  written.,  frcrhn  Philadelphia,  'and. other 
Quarters,  setting  forth  that  Bishop  Ondetdonk  must.be..destroyed-,  and  in  that 
•vyr^yit  was  endeavored  to  get  up  an-  ".excitement"  'in-thd  public,  mind  to' 
bear  upon  the  Bishop;  and  no\v  that  very  "  excitement,'*  thus  created,  is 
here  produced  as  an  argument  to  show  that  he  ought  to  be  sacrificed  I  There 
was  no  excitement  before,  the  General  Convention  met;  a.nd-in  support  of 
this  assertion,  I  appeal  tr>  every  member  of  this  Court;  .It  was  at'  that  Con- 
.vention  that  the  excitement  was  got  up;  and  thus  created,  and  thus  spread 
and  fostered,  it  is  now  actually  u-rged  here  as  a  reason  for  .the  conviction  qf 
the  Respondent.  I  can  hardly  trust  rnyself  before  .this  hbnorab.b  Court  to 
characterize,  as  it  deserves,  such,  a  course  of  proceeding,  and  soch  a  line 
of  argument.  .  .  .  .  •-  ' 

•May  it  please  the  Court — the'Church  requires  nothing.aj  your  hands  but 


.justice.  The'  interests  and  peace  of.  the  Church  require  thai 'yo.u  should 
never  suffer  one. of  your  brethren  ib  fee  sacrificed  because-  there  is  public 
excitement.  The  only  question  is;,  Is  he\  guilty  ?  If  you-  believe  that  h& 
.has  not  been  proved  guilty,  and  so  declare  in  your,  verdict,  then  the  Church, 
.is  set  at  rest,,  and  there  is  an  ei)d  of'this  '/  public  excitement. '"• 

I  now  proceed,  with  the  perrnjssion  of  the.'Cqurt;  to  consider,  tie  evidence 
before  you  ;  «nd,  first,  I  beg-  to  ray  down  three  or  four  principles,  which,  are 
not  only  the  'results  of  the  la, w  on  the  subject,  but  a  re  also  dictated  by.  com- 
mon.sense.  .  ~ 
.In  the  first  place,  when,  the  facts- testified  to  by  the  witnesses  are -improb- 
able in  themselye's,  it  requires  much  -stronger  evidence,  to  support  the*n  than 
if  they  were  probable,  because  the  improbability  is  against  the  laws  of  our 
nature  regulating"  our  belief. 

In  the  next  place,  when  the  witnesses  are  testifying  to  these  improbable 
facts,  the  law  and  common  sense  .requite,  that  they  should  be  consistent  in 
their  stories— <-ofisistent  with  each  other— that  they  should  not  tell/one  story 
at  one  time,. and  another  at  another  time.  For,  although  in  ordinary  cases» 
as  was  stated  by  .the  learned.  Counsel,  the  law  undoubtedly  is,  that 'small 
contradictions  ought  not  to  destroy  the  testimony  of  witnesses ;  yet  when  the 
facts  are  improbable,  and  require -more  than  ordinary  testimony  to  support 
them,  the  rule  is  a  good  one,  founded  on  common  sense  and  common  law, 
that  the  .evidence,  of  the  witnesses  must  be  perfectly  consistent  throughout. 

I  will  now -consider  the  evidence;  having  laid  down  these  principles,  to 
which  I  am  confident  the  good  sense  of  all  who  hear  me  must  accede. 

The  first  case  is  that  of  Mr?.  Butler.  Now  as  it  regards  that  case,  ho*v. 
ever  it  may  have,  been  insisted  upon  by  different  clergymen  in  the  Diocese, 
I  am  authorized  to  say,  that  the  first  word  the  Bishop  ever  heard  of  it  was 
during  the  sittings  of  the  General  Convention.  He  never  heard  of  such  a 
case  until  he  attended  that  Convention.  Now  let  us  look  at  this.  Here  is 
a  man  charged,  for  the  first  time,  with  improper  conduct  towards  this  lady, 
upwards  of  seven  years  ago.  Task  this  Court,  if  'clergy  men  of  this -Dio- 
cese knew  the  fact-: — if  they  knew  he -had  been  guilty  of  such  imprudence — 
why  did  they  suffer  it  to  sleep?  Have  they  just  now.  at- this  late  day, 
awoke  to  a  proper  consciousness  of  iheif  duty  to  the  Church  ?  Have  their 
eyes  been  only  opened  now  to  a  perception  of  their  duty  ?  I  believe  not. 
I  am  bound  to  believe,  for  the  honor  of  these  gentlemen,  that  they  jregarded 
the  fact  as  totally  unimportant — that  it  fixed  no  just  .charge  npoa  the  Bish- 
op, and  that  therefore,  and  therefore  only,  Ihej"  said  not  one  word-  about  it.' 

There  is  another  important  fact  about  this.-  These  Presenting  Bishops 
knew  that  there  was  a  third  party  in  the  carriage  on  that.occasion^-rMr. 
Peck,  the  driver.  His  name  has  been  all  along  withheld  from  us~-I  do  not 
<?ay  designedly 'withheld^  but  the  effect  is  the  same  on  the  case  of  the  Bishop, 
V  .er>  until  she  .was  Called  as  a  witness,  did  we  know  that  any  other  hu- 
man Deing  was  said  to  be  present,  except  Mr.  Butler  :  aud  it  is  my  dutv-to 
say  to  the  Court,  that  the  moment  we  heard  of  that,  we-  sent  for  this  Air* 
Peck,  and  not  until  this'day  could  we  get  an  answer..  We  now  find  that 
this  Mr.  Peck  bas  gone  to  South  America,  and  it  is  therefore  impossible  to 
obtain  his  testimony.  But  it  is  to  my  mind  a  most  extraordinary  fact,  that 
while  this  charge  is  made  up  in  the  story  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler,  the  najne 
of  the  .only  witness,  who.  could  have  possibly  assisted  the  Bishop,  is  uot 

S'ven.     We  never  *aw  the  affidavit,  and  knew  nothing  whatever  of  this 
r.  Peck,  until  Mrs.  Butler  ami  rier  husband  came  here  to  testify. 


216 

In  the  next  place,  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  Mrs.  Butler,  the  reason  of 
the  Bishop's  conduct  is,  throughout  their  testimony,  placed  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  intoxicated.  That  it  was  so,  cannot  be  denied  by  the  Present- 
ers, because  in  the  very  charge  it  is  stated  that  he  was  intoxicated  or  drunk. 
Now,  I  beg  leave  to  remind  the  Court,  that  the  charge  here  is  immorality 
and  impurity.  It  is  a  charge  directly  affecting  the  heart  and  intentions  of 
the  Bishop  at  that  time.  It  is  not  like  a  case  of  crime  at  law,  where  drunk- 
enness  is  an  exaggeration  of  the  offence ;  but  it  proceeds  entirely  on  the 
idea  that  there  were  impure  and  immoral  intentions  in  the  mind  of  the  Bish- 
op at  that  time.  Now,  if  he  were  so  intoxicated  that  he  could  have  no  use 
of  his  mind — so  intoxicated  that  he  did  not  know  what  he  was  about — then 
the  Court  must  say  that  drunkenness  was  the  crime,  and  not  the  conduct  on 
which  the  complaint  is  founded.  I  admit  that  drunkenness  is  an  immoral- 
ity. There  is  no  question  about  that.  But  all  that  I  desire  to  impress 
upon  the  Court  is,  that  if  these  witnesses  are  to  be  believed,  and  the  second 
article  in  the  Presentment  is  to  be  believed,  all  these  acts  were  done  when 
he  was  intoxicated.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  why  this  is  no  justification. 
Still,  I  answer,  there  is  no  crime  charged  here.  There  is  no  technical  crime 
charged  here.  .But  to  show  what  these  Presenters  think  of  that  immorality, 
they  have  attached  to  it  the  word  "  impurity,"  a  term  not  used  in  the  Canon, 
showing  their  idea  of  it;  that  when  the  Canon  speaks  of  immorality,  they 
meant  impurity.  Now,  a  case  has  been  cited,  by  my  associate,  from  Rus- 
sel,  that  in  murder,  the  highest  crime,  except  treason,  known  to  the  law, 
there  must  be  clearly  made  out  premeditated  malice  j  and  drunkenness  is 
always  to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the  jury  in  passing  upon  a  man 
accused  of  that  crime.  But  here,  when  the  entire  offence  charged  consists 
of  impurity  of  heart,  drunkenness  is,  in  my  opinion,  an  entire  defence. 

If  I  am  right  here,  then  I  ask  the  Court,  are  you  prepared  to  convict 
this  man  of  drunkenness,  because,  to  use  the  language  of  Mrs.  Butler,  he 
was  '•'  overtaken  '"'  seven  years  ago  ?  Is  subsequent  repentance  not  to  be 
allowed  ?  Is  the  fact  of  a  man's  continuing  from  that  time  till  this,  sober, 
and  abstaining  entirely  from  all  excess,  to  be  no  excuse  for  that  solitary 
act  committed  seven  years  ago  ?  In  other  words,  are  you  to  degrade  and 
destroy  this  man  on  account  of  circumstances  that  took  place  seven  years 
ago ;  and  of  the  repetition  of  which  there  is  no  evidence  under  heaven  be- 
fore you  ? 

But  let  us  examine  Mrs.  Butler's  evidence  a  little  more.  Now  suppose 
she  was  mistaken,  and  that  the  Bishop  was  perfectly  sober,  is  there  any 
thing  in  her  testimony  proving  any  impurity  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  ? 
I  say  there  is  not.  I  do  not  mean  to  read  the  evidence,  as  it  will  be  all 
read  over  to  you  before  you  proceed  to  judgment.  But  Mrs.  Butler  says 
that  the  Bishop  put  his  arm  round  her  waist,  and  pressed  her  to  his  bosom, 
and  that  in  the  sight  of  her  husband,  who  sat  upon  the  front  seat,  and  swears 
that  he  saw  it.  Now  can  any  man  in  his  senses  believe  that  a  man  with 
impure  motives  would  undertake  to  take  liberties  with  a  man's  wife  in  his 
presence,  and  when  he  knew  the  husband  was  looking  at  him  ?  If  all  the 
witnesses  on  earth  were  to  swear  to  it,  I  would  not  believe  it ;  and  if  the 
Counsel  mean  to  say,  that  because  Mrs.  Butler  has  sworn  to  it,  it  is  evi- 
dence of  the  impurity  of  the  Bishop,  I  reply  that  human  nature  contradicts 
it.  However  she  may  swear  to  it,  it  is  not  and  it  cannot  be  true.  But 
again  :  she  says  that  the  Bishop  repeated  this  action,  and  pressed  her  bo- 
som. Now  remember  she  states  that  the  roads  were  rough.  The  Bishop 


317 

..  4  , 

might  have  .had  his  arm  around  her  waist,  and  his  hand  been  raised,  and 
jet  he  be  as  innocent  as  any  one  here.  But  she  took  away  his  hand  gent- 
ly, and  addressed  him  in  the  manner  she  stated  to  the  Court.  Now  I  ask, 
is  it  possible  that  a  virtuous  woman,  with  whom  such  a  liberty  had  been 
taken  as  she  pretended  to  describe,  could  have  coolly  said — ".why,  sir, 
that  hand  is  sacred  to  me,'"'  and  so  on.  as  she  states  ?  This  shows  one  of 
two  things — either  that  this  woman  was  not  irritated  at  what  the  Bishop 
had  done — that  there  was  nothing  in  his  conduct  that  she  considered  an 
insult :  or,  that  she  was  lost  to  all  human  feeling.  But  she  proceeds.  She 
says  that  after  that  the  Bishop  sat  still  for  some  minutes.  She  thought  he 
would  not  repeat  the  offence.  He  did  repeat  it.  She  says  he  placed  his 
hand  on  her  bosom,  which  he  pressed.  All  may  have  occurred  from  the 
jolting  of  the  carriage.  She  goes  on,  and  states  that  she  started,  and  that 
he  grasped  her  thigh,  and  that  she  knocked  his  hand  away,  and  went  off 
to  her  husband.  Now  it  was  not  on  account  of  what  the  Bishop  had  done, 
but  on  account  of  what  she  feared  he  might  do ;  it  was  her  apprehension 
of  what  she  imagined,  and  not  indignation  at  what  had  happened,  which' 
induced  her  to  go  to  her  husband.  Well.  now.  this  is  all  that  occurred, 
according  to  this  woman's  own  testimony  ;  and  I  ask  even-  Bishop  here, 
whether  upon  that  evidence,  of  a  transaction  which  took  place  seven  years 
ago,  he  is  prepared  to  convict  the  Respondent. 

But  I  have  something  to  add  on  this  evidence  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler ; 
and  if  I  do  not  show  that  they  are  perfectly  inconsistent,  and  prove  their 
own  s'.ory  entitled  to  no  consideration,  I  am  no  judge  of  the  weight  of  evi- 
dence. We  have  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Butler,  on  which  this  Presentment 
was  formed.  Mr.  Butler  says  in  his  affidavit  that  they  left  the  town  of 
Ithaca  about  an  hour  before  sunset.  The  first  place  they  stopped  at  was 
Dryden,  a  distance  of  ten  miles.  The  Court  wUl  recollect  that  this  trans- 
action occurred  in  the  month  of  June— the  period  of  the  year  when  the 
days  are  the  longest:  and  when  twilight  continues  upwards  of  an  hour  af- 
ter sunset.  Mr.  Butler  says  that  these  improper  approaches  of  the  Bishop 
bewail  immediately  on  rising  the  hill  after  they  left  Ithaca.  He  is  asked, 
how  long  before  you  arrived  at  Dryden  did  your  wife  come  to  you  ?  He 
replied.  "  I  cannot  say  ;  but  it  appeared  to  me  to  be  a  long  time." '  Now 
they  left  Ithaca  an  hour  before  sunset.  They  must  have  arrived  at  Dry- 
den in  about  two  hours.  Suppose,  then,  that  she  went  to  her  husband 
half  an  hour  before  the  arrival  at  Dryden,  all  the  occurrences  described 
must  have  taken  place  within  one  and  a  half  hour  after  they  left  Ithaca, 
and  consequently  before  it  was  dark.  Again,  in  his  affidavit  he  says,  af- 
ter his  wife  came  upon  the  front  seat  with  him,  he  and  she  and  Mr.  Peck 
occupied  it  all  the  way  into  the  village  of  Syracuse.  Now  his  wife  swears 
that  when  they  left  the  breakfast-table,  he,  by  her  permission,  sat  with  the 
Bishop  on  the  back  seat  until  they  got  to  Syracuse.  How  is  this  to  be  re- 
conciled ?  He  swears  positively  one  way,  and  his  wife  just  as  positively 
another  !  Which  of  them  is  to  be  believed  ?  In  ray  opinion  this  shows 
that  the  testimony  of -this  man  is  not  worthy  of  reliance  ;  for  permit  me 
here  to  remind  you  that  an  occurrence  of  this  kind  was  calculated  to  make 
an  indelible  impression  upon  the  mind.  There  is  not  a  man  here,  who,  if 
such  a  thing  had  happened,  would  not  have  recollected  with  distinctness 
every  particle  of  it.  It  would  have  made  an  impression  that  nothing  could 
have  wiped  off;  and  yet  we  find  this  Mr.  Butler  swearing  positively  to  a 
fact,  contradicted  by  his  own  wife,  and  in  which  he  is,  beyond  all  ques- 

29 


21.8  > 

lion,  incorrect-^— for  he  himself  swears  that  he  thinks  he  rode  with  the  Bish- 
0jp  into  Syracuse— thtls  flatly  contradicting  his  own  affidavit.  Again,  in 
his  affidavit,  Mr,  Butler-states  that  his  wife  touched  his  shoulder  and  whis- 
pered.to  him  that' she  could  not  sit  there,  and  must  cortie  and  sit  with  him ; 
and  He  goes  on  and  say'sV- "  she  quickly  changed  her  seat  and:  sat  on  my 
lap  "in  great -agitation,  and  distress.''" .'.'Now  what  did-  she.  say  'when,  she 
daine  on 'his. lap'?  ."Only  that  she  could'-not  sit  with-  the  Bishop  any  longer, 
but  must  sit  with  him  •,  and  that  was  told  in  a  whisper.  ."She  was- in  great 
agitation."  If  she  had  told  him  any  thing  else,  do  you  beljeye  that  he 
cpuld  Have  forgotten'  .;it  ?  '  Remember  that  this  was  the  'critical  moment ; 
eVery  circumstance  and  every  word  must  then  have  -been  indelibly  im- 
pressed upon  his  memory."  He  goes  ;pn  and  state's,  that  wheri'they  stopped 
•at  Drycjen  she .  fold  him  that  the  Bishop's  conduct  had  been  grossly  im- 
proper, and  that,  as  ghe  supposed,  scarce  knowing  what  he  did, 'he  had  be- 
guri'tp  lift  ;up  hej  clothes-.  According  to  .that  deposition,  this'  was  all  that 
that  woman  said  tp  hier  husband. 

•  Now  ,1  &sk  the  Court,  what  is  the  evidence-  given,  before  -them  now  ? 
What  is  the' affidavit  sworn  to  positively-,  ajid  that  one  too 'on  which  this 
'Presentment  was  formed  ?  '  Let  "us,  then,  see  how  it  accords  with  the  state- 
ment made  here.  "My  wife,"  says, he,  "touched  me  on  the  shoulder  and 
said  she  must  come  over  to;  me  ;.'.  she  "came,  and  sat  on"  my  lap.  I  asked 
her  what  had  happened  ;  jshe' whispered  to  me,  anid  I  understood  her  to  Say 
that  the  Bishop  had  beei  i -very  rude,  and  had  attempted  1p  pull  up  her 


clothes."     In  "bis  .-ia.ffi.dav 


to  that,  and  whispered  to 
clothes'.     That  is  directly 


f  he  swears  thai  all  .she  told  him  was  that  she 


could  not:  sit.  Vrth'the  Bishop  iany.  longer..-  Now  he  swedrs  that  she  added 


iim  that  the  Bishop  had  attempted  to: pull  up  her 
contradictory  to  his  .affidavit/     Now  these  two 


sfateiments  ate  quite,  irredonc'flab.le.  Accoi'dihg  to  the  testimony  of  Mrs. 
Butler,  she  told  him  nothijig  at  'Dryden  about  tHe  Bulling  up  of  her  clothes. 
But  she  goes  further,  and  she  says  that  sTxeiiever  told  lier  husband  that  the 
•Bishop  had  •attempted  to  null  up  her  clothes.  Is  not 'this  6x.traoi-dihary  ? 
tie  swears,  Without  any  reseryation,  tliat  she^id.  She  denies  It  positively. 
Bat  there  is  a  sfill  more  pjalpable  contradiction  than  this.;  She  swears  that 
she  .never  told  her  hufsbanid  the  Bishop  had  attempted  to  pull' up  her  clothes, 
but  that  she  'was  afraid  he  would  'pull  np  Tier  clothes.  Mrs. '  Butler 
Says  that  ker  husband  '-gof  the  idea  of  the  Bishop's  attempting  to  pull  up 
.  her  clothes  from  her  having  shown  him  how  the  Bishop  placed  his  hand  on 
her  thigh,  by  which,  her  Clothes  were  partially  pulled  up,:  He  swears  di- 
•rectly  contrary;  .'He  Swears' that  it  was  from  her  telling  "him  in  a  whis- 
per when  she  first  came  und  sat  on'  his  lap::  whilst  she"  swears  expressly 
that  she  ne'veV  did  tell  hirji  so..  I  ask  the  Court,  is  not  this  a  palpable  in- 
consistency ?  Is  not  the  pne  arrayed  against  the  other  ? 

And  ageing  Mrs.  Butler!  s\vears,  that  when-  her  husband  :returne'd  from 
Philadelphia,  he  showed  her  the  affidavit  he  had  made  ;  and  that  it  was 
'do.rrect  .in  every  thing  exdeptthe- clause  relating  to  pulling  up  her  clothes. 
•M'r.  Butler  has  sworn  that  the  affidavit  was-  incorrect  in  another  part,  be;, 
cause  he  states  in  it  that  'he  rod6  with  her  and  Mr.  Peek. all  the  way  to 
Syracusd-;  while'  she  swears  that  that  is  not  true.  HoW  is  this  to  be  recon- 
6ated  ?'  Again,  she  says  in  her  examination  here,"  that  heif  husband  did  not 
show  her  the  affidavit  immediately, after -his  return  from  Philadelphia. 'be- 
cause he  was  so  sure  it  was  correct.  •'  Now  it  is  astonishing  that  this  man 
should  be  so  perfectly  assured  that  this  is  quite  correct,  vftien  it  is  contra. 


219 

•       ,    '  ft      .    v  .'•£.'    -, 

dieted  in  two  instances  by  the  testimony  of  his  wife  ;  and  now  admitted  by 
'him  in-  both  of  these  instances  -to  be  not  correct ;  does  not  this  show  that 
Mr.  Butler  undertakes  to  give  a  false  coloring  to  his  story  ?  It  is1  utterly 
impossible  that  he  could  be  merely  forgetful,  with  regard  to  facts  calculated 
to  make  a  clear  and  lasting  impression  oil  his  mind. 

But,  'if  the  Court  please,  there  is  another  portion  of  this  testimony  on . 
which  I  think  it  proper  to  comment.  In  the  course  of  the  cross-examina- 
tion, I  asked  Mrs.  Butler:.  "Madam,  are  you  sure  that  you  yourself  rode 
all  the  way  from  Dryden.to  Syracuse  on  the  front  seat  ?"  ;  Her  answer 
was  extremely  -cautious — -"I  think  I  did."  I  repeated  the.  question  : 
"  Madam,  are  you  certain  ?"  "  Why,"  says  she,  "  I  am  as  certain  as  I 
can  be  of  such  an  .unimportant  matter;"  and  in  all  the  examination  I 
could  not  get  her -to  commit,  herself 'to  a  direct  statement,  whether  she  did 
o,r  not.  'Why  this  caution  ?  Because  she  supposed  it  -possible  .that  Mr* 
Peck'  might  be  brought  forward  ;  and  that  if  he  werte,  he  could  have  proved 
that  .she  rode  the  greater  part  .of  the  way  with  ihe  Bishop.  We  sent  for 
Mr.  Peck  ;  and,  as  I  told  the  Court,  he  has  gone- to  South  America.  But 
she  did  not  know  that.  But  why  this' excessive  caution  ?  .  Why  could  she 
not  have  said  "  yes",  or  '"  no  ?•" 

[Bishop  HOUKINS: — Do  I  understand  that  Mr.  Peck  was  cited  to  appear 
•before  the  Court  ?  .  .  •,  .  .  •.  :  . 

Mr.  OGDEtf— Of  course  we  did  not  cite  him  until  we  ascertained  whether 
he  .could  he  found. or  not.  We  \vrote  to  Syracuse  immediately  after  we 
obtained  his  name  ;  and  we  did  not  receive  an  answer  till  yesterday.  He 
is  not  to  be  found  ;  he  has  gone  to  South  America.]  t»  .' 

Mr.  OGDEN  proceeded— Could  this  woman's  excessive  caution  have  pro- 
ceeded from  any  other  cause  than  that  I. have  just. stated  ?  She  must  have 
known  whether' she  rode  all  the  way  on  the'front  seat  or  not;  Oh  !  says 
she,  that  is  very  immaterial, — Ithink  otherwise;  and  I  wanted  to  bring 
out  the  facU  'I  repeated  the  question  over  and  over  again  ;  but  all  to  no 
purpose.  Now.  I  ask  the  Court,  if  .this  woman  intended  to  testify  with  all 
candor  on  a  subject  which  she  could  not  possibly  have  forgotten,  would  she 
not  at  once  have 'said  :  "  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  ride  on  the  seat  with  the  Bishop  ; 
I  could  not."  But  Mr.  Peck  is  not  here;  and  the  Bishop's  evidence  can- 
not be  heard,  and  the  Court  must,  therefore,  take  hers.'  And  this  one  cir- 
cumstance ought,  I  think,  to- have  great  weight,  in  showing  you  the  danger 
of  convicting  a  man  on  the  unsupported  evidence  of  any  woman.  .  Why, 
there  is  not  one  of  you,  that  in  the  'discharge  of  your  pastoral  duties,  may 
not  encounter,  a  bad  woman,  who  may  accuse  you  of  the  crime  of  adultery  ; 
and  I  as.k,  if  her  single  testimony  were  to  be  allowed  against  you,  what 
safety,  could  there  be  for  you  ?  It  is  the  most  dangerous  of  all  evidence  ; 
and  I  repeat,  that  when  the  evidence  is  upon  its  face  improbable,  it  requires 
the  utmost  consistency  on  .the  part  of  the  witness, to  support  the  charge.-  I 
trust  that  I  have  shown  that  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  is  totally  in- 
consistent  with  itself,  and  with  each  other. 

'.But  the  gentlemen  will  say,  all  the  material  facts  are  sworn  to,  and  may    ., 
•  be  true..  '  But  still  they  may  not  be  true  ;  and  that  is  enough  for  my  pur-  "" 
pose.     -If  there  is  a  shadow  of  doubt  resting  upon  the  evidence)  it  is -enough 
to  acquit  my  client.    .He  is  not  to  be! convicted,  he  cannot  be  convicted  on 
doubtful  evidence.     I  have  shown  that  the  affidavit  and  the  deposition  of 
the  two  witnesses,  are  absolutely  false  in  sundry,  particulars  ;  and  there  is 
no  escape  from  the  application  of  the  principle— -fahus  in  uno,falsus  in- one* 


220 

• 

nibus.  I  cannot  rely  upon  the  testimony  of  a  witness  proved  to  be  false  in 
any  one  particular;  because  it  shows  that  the  witness  has  either  wilfully 
sworn  falsely,  or  is  careless  of  what  he  swears ;  and  in  both  cases,  he  is 
alike  unworthy  of  credit. 

One  word  more  on  this  testimony,  and  I  have  done  with  it ;  I  have  al- 
ready dwelt  longer  on  it  than  I  intended.  Mr.  Butler  is  a  clergyman  of  our 
Church.  It  was  the  duty  of  Mr.  Butler,  if  he  believed  the  Bishop  to  have 
been  guilty  of  the  acts  now  charged,  to  have  made  a  representation  of  the 
mat.ter  to  the  proper  ecclesiastical  authority  at  the  time.  Why  did  he  not 
do  so  ?  Why,  he  was  a  young  man,  and  did  not  wish  to  ruin  the'  Bishop  f 
But  young  as  he  was,  he  knew  that  there  was  an  ecclesiastical  authority  in 
the  State — that  the  matter  would  be  taken  out  of  his  hands  by  them,  and  that 
they  would  convict  and  punish  the  Bishop.  But  Mr.  Butler  is  perfectly 
silent — and  better  for  him  had  he  remained  silent.  He  went  about  retailing 
his  story  to  the  enemies  of  the  Bishop,  advising  them :  "  Say  not  a  word 
about  it.  I  tell  it  to  you  in  confidence  ;"  and  in  this  silent,  insidious  way 
endeavoring  to  destroy  the  reputation  of  the  Bishop,  and  undermine  it  in 
such  a- way  as  was,  in  my  opinion,  altogether  unworthy  of  a  clergyman 
and  a  gentleman.  He  ought  to  have  related  his  grievance,  if  he  had  any, 
to  the  proper  authority,  and  not  to  have  gone  about- retailing  it  insidiously, 
for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  reputation  of  his  Diocesan'.  It  is  said 
that  this  case  was  mentioned  at  Utica  to  Dr.  Hawks,  and  others.  Now,  if 
that  be  true,  why  did  not  Dr.  Hawks  communicate  it  to  the  ecclesiastical 
authority  ?  Was  it  consistent  with  their  duty,  as  Christians  and  as  ministers 
of  the  Church,  to  keep  the  matter  festering  in  their  bosoms,  until  a  proper 
time  should  arrive,  when  they  could  bring  it  out  like  a  clap  of  thunder  ?  I 
ask  every  sensible  man  who  hears  me,  what  was  their  duty  towards  the 
Bishop — towards  the  Church— towards  their  God  ?  Was  it  not  to  have  had 
him  tried  and  convicted  at  the  time,  or  else  to  have  buried  the  charge  in 
oblivion  for  ever  ? 

I  come  now  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Bolles.  Now  what  is  his  charge  ?  [Mr. 
O.  read  the  specification,  which  need  not  be  repeated  here.]  Now  how  is 
this  attempted  to  be  proved  ?  By  Mr.  Bolles.  He  is  the  only  witness. 
They  cannot  contradict  him.-  But  so  far  from  sustaining  the  charge,  he 
directly  contradicts'  it.  Where  these  Presenters  got  the  foundation  of  this 
charge  I  know  not ;  but  I  do  know  that  it  was  a  gross  misapprehension,  and 
a  gross  misstatement  of  the  fact ;  and  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  that  it  was  a 
wilful  misstatement  of  the  fact.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  true  that  Bishop 
Onderdonk  and  this  young  lady  sat  on  the  back  seat  at  all.  It  is  not  true, 
that  they  were  the  only  persons  in  the  stage ;  for  Mr.  Bolles  distinctly 
swears,  that  there  was  not  only  a  little  girl,  but  grown  persons,  on  the  front 
seat,  looking  directly  at  the  Bishop,  and  who  might  have  seen  every  move- 
ment. The  charge  is,  that  he  put  his  arm  around  the  young  lady's  waist. 
It  is  not  true.  Mr.  Bolles  says  it  is  not  true.  All  that  he  swears  was  done 
by  the  Bishop,  was  his  taking  the  young  lady  by  the  hand.  Their  own  wit- 
ness contradicts  their  charge.  They  have,  indeed,  got  Dr.  Taylor  here  for 
the  purpose  of  confirming  it,  but  his  testimony  has  quite  the  contrary 
effect.  There  is  also  this  important  point, — Mr.  Bolles  says  expressly,  that 
he  never  told  any  body  at  Utica  about  it,  except  Dr.  Hawks.  It  is  not  true, 
therefore,  that  Dr.  Taylor  heard  it  from  Mr.  Bolles.  Mr.  Bolles  does  not 
say  so.  He  swears  that  he  never  told  any  body  but  Dr.  Hawks  ;  Dr. 
Hawks  and  Mr.  Bolles  went  to  the  Bishop  at  the  recommendation  of  Dr- 


221 

Taylor.  Dr.  Hawks  stated  the  facts  contrary  to  truth.  Mr.  Bolles  says 
he  never  said  that  the  Bishop  took  the  young  lady  by  the  waist.  Now  the 
presumption  is,  that  it  must  have  been  in  the  affidavit  of  Dr.  Hawks,  that 
this  charge  was  made  ;  for  Mr.  Bolles  swears,  that  he  was  the  only  person 
to  whom  he  communicated  the  matter.  Either  Mr.  Bolles.  therefore,  has 
perjured  himself,  or  the  facts  set  forth  in  the  charge  do  not,  in  any  way, 
support  the  Dr. 's  allegations.  But  Mr.  Bolles  is  their  own  witness,  and  they 
cannot  dispute  his  contradiction  of  their  charge.  This  charge  is,  therefore, 
entirely  unsupported. 

'As  I  pass  from  this  case  to  the  next,  will  the  Court  permit  me  to  refer,  for 
a  moment,  to  a  point  of  which  the'Counsel  who  addressed  you  last  evening 
attempted  to  make  a  great  handle.  He  asked  why  I  did  not  put  the  ques- 
tion to  Mr.  Butler  which  I  had  put  to  his  wife,  relative  to  their  showing 
the  Bishop  about  their  house.  I  did  not  repeat  the  question,  because  the 
Bishop  said  that  that  was  on  occasion  of  another  visit.  The  argument  had 
not  the  slightest  foundation. 

The  next  case  is  that  of  the  Misses  Rudderow.  Miss  Helen  Rudderow 
says  that  she  went,  in  '41,  with  the  Bishop  from  St.  James's  Church  to  her 
brother's  house,  a  distance  of  a  mile — that  they  rode  in  a  one-horse  wagon 
belonging  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Richmond — who  was  the  only  other  person  in 
the  wagon,  and  who  drove  the  horse — and,  according  to  her  account,  the 
moment  they  started  the  Bishop  began  to  take  liberties  with  her.  Now,  in 
the  first  place,  the  Bishop  was  almost  a  stranger  to  her,  and  it  is  certainly 
not  a  little  extraordinary  that  the  Bishop  should  have  been  weak  and  foolish 
enough  to  do  so  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Richmond,  who  was  looking  round 
and  conversing  with  the  Bishop — and  who,  as  I  believe  you  all  know, 
talks  enough.  Is  it  at  all  probable  that  the  Bishop  could  have  taken 
the  liberties  she  describes  without  attracting  the  attention  of  Mr.  Richmond  ? 
On  the  very  face  of  this  story  there  is  such  an  air  of  improbability  that  I 
should  be  quite  satisfied  to.  leave  it  with  you  without  a  syllable  of  comment. 
But  let  us  go  on  a  little  further,  and  see  whether  she  is  consistent  in  her 
statement.  She  says  that  when  she  got  home,  she  went  up  stairs  to  her 
sister's  room,  and  asked  her  to  walk  down  and  entertain  the  Bishop  until 
the  rest  of  the  family  should  be  present.  In  other  words,  she  requested  her 
sister  to  go  down  and  extend  the  civilities  of  the  house  to  a  man,  who,  ac- 
cording to  her  account,  had  insulted  her  in  the  grossest  manner,  and  who, 
surely,  was  entitled  to  no  sort  of  courtesy.  The  word,  if  I  remember  right, 
was  "  entertain."  The  Court  will  correct  me  if  it  is  not  so.  Now  it  does 
seem  to  me  that  a  proud  woman — that  a  virtuous  woman — a  woman  of 
right  feeling,  would,  so  far  from  treating  him  with  civility,  not  have 
thought  of  doing  so — would  never  have  asked  her  sister  to  go  down  and 
"entertain"  him.  Again,  her  cousin  was  there — why  not  examine  her  ? 
She' could  have  proved  what  Helen  said  at  that  time.  But  she  is  not  here, 
and  the  story  rests  entirely  on  the  unsupported  testimony  of  Miss  Helen  and 
her  sister  Jane.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  this  fact  alone  is  sufficient  to  dis- 
credit the  whole; — that  she  could  not  have  been  so  insulted,  or  she  would 
not  have  been  so  anxious  to  have  the  Bishop  treated  with  civility.  The 
Court  will  recollect  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Dowdney  on  this  point.  He 
saw  her  treat  the  Bishop  with  great  cordiality,  and  meet  him  afterwards,  con- 
versing with  him  as  if  nothing  had  happened.  Now,  is  it  possible  that  a 
woman,  feeling  herself  insulted  as  she  pretends  she  was,  could  have  gone, 
afterwards,  and  received  him  with  any  thing  like  cordiality  ?  It  is  contrary 


to  human  nature.  This' is  one.  of  those,  facts  contrary  to  the  very  princi- 
ples of  human  natufe,  which  ought  not,  arid  can-not,  be  believed-,  "no"  matter 
how  sworn  to.  "Again,  jf  the  Bishop  had  taken  .these  liberties  with  this 
Woman,:  it  could  not  possibly  have  escaped  the  observation  of  Mr.  Richmond. 
But  that  gentleman  observed  nothing.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  the  Bishop 
himself- never  heard  of 'it  till)he  General  Conventibri  at  Philadelphia-,,  Js 
not  this; remarkable.? 

Miss  Jane  'Rudderow  -goes  afterwards  to  the  Bishop's  house — volunteers' 
to  go— declares  that  she  is  very  intimate  with  the  Bishop,'  arrd  proposes  to 
go  and  solicit  from  him. 'a -favor.     Is  this  consistent/with  her  story?    If. 
rio  insult  had  ever  been  offered- to;  herself,  would  she  not  -have  resented  that 
offered  to  her. sister  ?     Why,  k  is  impossible;     She  would  die  sooner  than 
act  in  such  a  manner— 'a'manaer. so  entirely  contrary  to. the  feelings  and, 
principles  of  a.  spirited  and  high-minded  woman.     Indeed,  the.story  of  Miss- 
Jane  Rudderow  is  a  most  remarkable  one;    .It  is  more  like  the  testihiony.  of  i 
a  crazy  woman  than  any  thing  else. .   Her  sister  told  her  of  the  conduct  of-' 
the- Bishop  to  herself.     Jane,  .then,  in  accordance  with   her -request,  went 
downstairs  to  •'•' entertain"  the  Bishop.     She  found  him  standing  at  the*  | 
centre4able,  looking  at  a  book.     She  had  been  put  on  her  guard  by  her1 
sister,  that  the  Bishop  was  not  a  man  to  be  trusted  with  a  female,  and  yet 
she  gives  the  Bishop  her  hand,- and  alloxvs  him  to  lead  her  to  the  sofa — al- 
most inviting,  as  it  were,  the  IJishop  to,  put  an  insult  upon  her.     She  s<i 
the  door  was  wide  open*  and.  that  her  brothers  were  in  the  entry,  and  could' 
have  entered  the  .room  at  any  moment. .   The  Bishop  then,  accqrding  to- her' 
account,  committed  the  act  with  every  chance  of  detection  staring  him  in 
the  face.     But  she  says  that  the  Bishop  put  his.-  hand  into  her  bosom — that 
she  retreated  to  the  other  -end  of  the.  sofa — that  the  Bishop  followed  bet 
there,  and  repeated  the  insult,  and  that  he  desisted  only  on  hearing  footsteps- 
oh  the  stairsj  when  he  again  moved  to  the  other  end  of  the  sofa.     But  she 
does  not  stop  here.  '  This  is  a  wonderful  story.  .After  "dinner  they  went 
out  on  the  piazza — seven  or  eight  persops  were  there;  the  Bishop  "asked; 
where  Mr  Schermerhprn's  house  was-^and  she  walked  to. the  .other  end  of: 
the  piazza  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  it  out  to  him^  the  moment  he  got 
.her  there,  she.  swears  that  he !;  repeated  the  insult !     This  is  done  when  all 
these  persons  are  on"  the  piazza!  :  Is  that  probable;  ?  'Is.it  possible?     Bui 
this  is  not  all.    Tliey  all  return  to  the  house.    After  dinner,  Miss  Jane,  who 
wishes' to  go.  to  the  Sunday-school,  approaches  the  window  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  if  it  rains.     The  Bishop  starts  up,  follows  her,  and,  the  mo- 
ment she  gets  to  the  window,  and  in  the  face  of  all  .the  family,  puts  his  hand 
into  he*  bosom.    'Those  who  -can  believe  -this,  may.     1  do  not  believe  ones 
word  of  it.  '-..'•  '  /  .  . 

But,  again, .in. all  her  conversations  with  Mr.  Dowdney,  Jane  never  pre- 
tended that  the  Bishop  had  insulted  her.     Mr.  Dowdney. swears  to  that, 
Is  not,  this  extraordinary?     Her  only  complaint  Mas  with  respect  ^to.  the 
insulf  offered  to  Helen.     Then  again,  when  she  proposes  in  presence  of  Miss  :  • 
Rutter) to  go  to  the  house  of  the  Bishop,  she  is  asked,  "Do  you  know  the 
Bishop?"  she  replies,  "Oh-!  yes,  I  know  him  intimately."  ^  Is 'that  con*  • 
sistent  with  the  story  of  the  repeated  insults  she- had  received  ?     Not  on)y 
that,  but  Mr.  Dowdney  states  that  he  saw  her  meet  the  Bishop  at  the  ves- 
tibule-of  the  Church,  and  that  her  greeting  was  quite  cordial.     What.' 
treat  the  man  who  has  repeatedly  insulted  her  sister  and  herself  with  any  . 


thing  h"ke  cordiality  !  •  Why,  a,.virtuous'.woman  \»"ould'  utterly  spurn  jsuert 
njohdoct,  .'• 

With  these  observations  I. leave  'the.  pase  of  the  Misses  Rudderow.  : 

The  gentleman  will  say',  -What !  do  .you  destroy  the.  credit1  of  these,  two 
girls?  Is  the  reputation  .of  .respectable  females  to  •  be  thus  trifled  w"ith  ? 
I  reply.  Is  the'  reputation  of  a  minister  of  the -great  God  :not  -equal  tofthat 
of  any  woman  ?  I  am.  the  last  'man,  dh  earth  who  .wouM  volvultarily  at- 
tempt ^a  destroy  the  reputation  of  a' female  for>eracity,  'but  when  LcJomb 
to  compare  it  .with  the  reputation  of  the  Church,  and  -one  of'  her  Bishops' 
and  Fathers,  in -my  opinion  '.il.arndunt^'to  ho.thing.  ''•=  •  ; 

I  come  now.  (o  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  .Beare.  I  have'  endeavoreJd  to- 
weigh  it  carefully,- and  I  regard  it  as -the  most  inccnsiiderable^fFerell-'in 
behalf  of  the  Presentment. '  I  may  be  mistaken,  lam  aware-  that  wd  are 
apt  to  lean  towards  our  client.  But  I' have -regarded; this. case  as  quite  too 
solemn  for  the  indulgence  of  any  such  merely  professional' feelings,  ajnd  I 
have,  therefore;  studidusly  endeavored  to  be  •governed,  in  forming  my  judg- 
ment strictly  by  reason. 

Now  what  is  Mrs.  Beard's  testimony'?'  She  says'- that  on  a' certain;  oc-. 
casion,  no  matter  what^  the  Bishop -'came  to  pay  a  visit' to '-the  church  in 
w.hich  her  husband -officiated— that  she  rode  home  with  him' from:  the 
ehurch  in  the  morning,  in.  a  carriage,  In  company  with  her  .mother  .and. 
brother,  I  think,- but  it '"is -not.  material  jyith  whom— an.d  th&t,  during  that 
short  ride,  in  mid-day,  she  -being  aliridst-  an  'entire  stranger  to  the  Bishop,  h0 
took  improper  liberties  with  her — ^pressed  her  to  him-^-that.  when  she-  got 
'home  she  complained,  to  her  husband  ; -. he-,  cautioned-  'her  to  say  nothing' 
about  .it,  and  hinted  thaVshe.  might  have' been  miMaken-^that  in  the.  after- 
noon sh.e  declined  riding  to  "church  "svith 'the  BisHpp,  aftd  that  tRerefoVe,  lie 
and  her  husband  went  ia  one  carriage,  white  sh'e  accompanied  some  rela- . 
tives- in  another— that'  they  were  -engaged  to  drink  'tea,  in  the  evening,  at 
the  house  of  a  Mr.  Franklin — that  she  rode  with  her  brother-in-law;  on  her 
'way.  thither  to.  the  top' of.  the  lane— that  she  then- got  into  the.  same  car- 
riage'with  the  Bishop' and  her  husband — that  they  remained  at  Mr.  Frank- 
lin's till  about  9  o'clock  in  the  eyening — that  they  then  all  got  into 'the 
carriage  and  returned  honie — thaf.  id  the.  course  of  that  ride,  the  Bishop 
not  only  repeated  the  insult  of  tHe.  Corning,  but  alfeo-  committed,  much, 
more  gross  indignities,  putting  hfs  .hand  into  her  bosom  ^ag-fdr  as  he  could 
'g'efit,  and  then  passed  •  it  ddwn  her  person  till  he.  placetl  it  oh  her  thigh. 
This  is  'her  story,  stated,  I  believe,  as  she  told  it.'  .Now  on  it  I  have  one 
or  -two  remarks  to  inakf.' which  ,catry  perfect  conviction 'ta.  my  muid. 
She  had  been  insulted  in  the  morning  i  She 'had  refused  to  -ride  to  church 
with  the  Bishop  in  the.  afternoon,  and  also  V>n  the  way  to  Mr!  Franklin';?  in 
'the  evening,  'for  fe'ar  of- a. repetition  of  this  offence  ^  and.  yet. 'we  li:id  Ik-iy 
after  dark,  putting  h&rsel'f  preci'sely  in  .the  -same  situation  v.-hich  she  fiad  ' 
.so  resolutely  refused  to- occupy  in  the  day-time'!  How  is  this  to  beva'q- ' 
counted  for?  She  was  afraid  to  ride,  with  the  Bishop  in  the  day-time^ ; 
even;  in  conipany,  and  under  the  eye  of  h<5r- husband ;  but  after  dark. 
when  nobody  could  'possibly  see,  she  actually  courts  a  rewrition'  of  the'in- 
suk  which,  .she  alleges,  the  Bishop -committed  upon'  her  in  die  morning. 
All  this  was  done  quite  voluntarily  on  her  part.  'Is  ft  at  .all  creclible^is 
it  at -all  possible  that  any  woman  could  act  in  such,  a  manner  ?  Could  she 
put  herself  absolutely  in  such  a  situation,  as  invited 'a  'repetition  of  an  of- 
fenee  against  which  every  virtuous  feeling  revolted*  It  does  seem  to  me 


224 

that  this  argument  alone  is  conclusive  against  the  reception  of  her  evi- 
<lence.  She  never  could  have  felt  herself  so  insulted,  as  she  now  states 
she  was,  on  the  morning  of  that  day,  or  she  could  not  by  any  possibility 
have  behaved  in  such  a  manner  in  the  evening. 

Again,  she  says  that  after  they  got  home  they  had  family  prayers,  and 
that  afterward,  when  she  got  into  the  room  with  her  husband,  she  told  him 
of  this  tremendous  insult.  She  was.  she  says,  agitated  all  night.  She  could 
not  sleep.  She  was  kept  awake  by  the  same  feelings,  and  this  unhappy  pair 
passed  the  entire  night  brooding  over  this  terrible  insult ;  and  yet  the  next 
morning  at  brcakfast;  this  lady,  instead  of  absenting  herself  on  some  plea, 
comes  down  to  the  table,  treats  the  Bishop  with  cordiality,  and  extends  to 
him  all  the  friendly  hospitalities  of  the  house.  Is  this  probable  ?  Why  not 
make  an  excuse,  any  excuse  on  earth,  rather  than  meet  the  man  who  had  so 
grossly  insulted  her.  But  she  conies  down  as  usual;  not  a  word  of  com- 
plaint  is  uttered,  not  a  hint  of  disapprobation  is  given,  and  the  Bishop  leaves 
the  house  in  the  full  belief  that  he  left  behind  him  the  same  kind  feelings 
which  had  greeted  him  on  his  arrival. 

But  if  the  Court  please,  this  testimony  does  not  stop  here.  Some  weeks 
afterward,  I  do  not  know  how  long,  nor  is  it  important,  the  Bishop  goes  there 
on  another  occasion.  He  goes  to  ordain  Mr.  Beare.  Now,  if  he  had  be- 
lieved the  Bishop  to  be  an  adulterer  in  heart,  would  he  have  ever  suffered 
him  to  ordain  him — could  he  ever  have  consented  to  receive  the  order  of  the 
priesthood  from  such  .polluted  hands  ?  If  he  had  the  feelings  of  a  man  he 
never  could.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  go  to  the  liouse  of  Dr.  Sohroeder  for  the 
purpose  of  meeting  the  Bishop.  There  was  no  avoidance  of  the  Bishop  by 
them;  quite  the  contrary.  At  all  events  we  find  them  there.  Dr.  Schroe- 
der,  after  showing  them  the  green-house,  asked  if  they  wo'uld  be  presented 
to  the  Bishop.  They  acceded,  and  the  meeting  was  a  cordial  one.  Ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Schroeder,  they  met  in  the  most  friendly  manner,  and  shook 
hands. 

Mr.  KETCHCM. — They  did  not  shake  hands. 

Mr.  OGDEN. — I  don't  know — the  Court  will  correct  me  if  I  am  mistaken. 

Mr.  OGDEN  proceeded. — Dr.  Schroeder  was  asked  if  there  were  any 
apparent  coolness  on  the  part  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare.  "  None  on  earth," 
was  the  reply ;  and  if  there  were,  he  must  have  observed  it.  Mr.  Beare 
asked  the  Bishop  to  dine  with  him  the  next  day  ;  the  Bishop  replied  that 
he  had  engaged  to  dine  with  Mr.  Franklin.  "  But  you  must  dine  with  us," 
was  the  answer  of  Mr.  Beare  ;  and  finally,  the  Bishop,  after  speaking 
about  the  getting  rid  of  the  previous  engagement,  yields  to  the  solicitation 
of  Mr.  Beare.  Now  Mr.  Beare  is  asked  if  he  had  any  recollection 
,  about  this  prior  engagement  having  been  alluded  to  by  the  Bishop,  but  all 
he  says  is,  that  he  asked  the  Bishop  to  dine  ;  concealing  the  fact  of  the 
prior  engagement,  and  that  he  insisted  on  its  violation.  How  is  this  ?  Is 
not  this  a  very  significant  fact  ?  But  the  gentleman  will  say  "  this  was 
only 'common  civility  towards  the  Bishop,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beare." 
"  What !  common  civility  to  the  man  who  had  insulted  his  wife  in  this  gross 
manner — to  him  who  had  committed  adultery  with  her  in  his  heart !  Why, 
if  they  had  met  the  Bishop  with  cold  civility,  it  might  have  been  consistent 
with  the  story  ;  but  to  ask  him  to  dine,  and  to  press  the  invitation  even  to 
the  violation  of  a  prior  engagement,  is  that  cold  civility  ?  This  fact  alone 
is  conclusive  evidence  that  they  could  not  have  entertained  towards  the 


225 

Bishop  those  feelings  which  were  unavoidable  had  these  gross  insults  been 
offered  to  Mrs.  Beare. 

But  what  happened  at  dinner  ?  Mr.  Goodwin  was  there,  as  was  also 
.Mr.  Swoetzer.  Did  they  observe  any  thing  like  coolness?  Not  at  all. 
They  are  very  positive  about  that.  There  was  not  the  slightest  indication 
of  the  kind.  Now  is  h  possible  that  a  woman  feeling  herself  grossly 
insulted,  and  her  husband  being  aware  of  the  fact,  would  have  entertained 
the  author  of  the  insult  as  a  guest,  and  treated  him  with  the  utmost  cor- 
diality and  kindness. 

Then  they  went  in  the  vestry-room  in  the  morning,  and  again  the  con- 
duct towards  the  Bishop  i?  marked  with  perfect  cordiality.  Mrs.  Beare 
and  her  husband  are  both  entirely  wanting  in  the  exhibition,  in  the  slightest 
degree,  of  those  feelings  under  which  the}'  must  of  necessity  have  labored, 
had  they  been  smarting  under  the  sense  of  the  wrongs  which  they  now 
describe.  If  this  case  rested  solely  upon  (he  testimony  of  these  witnesses, 
I  am  confident  that  not  a  Bishop  who  hears  .me  could  for  a  moment  think 
of  finding  the  Bishop  guilty.  But  it  is  attempted  to  bolster  up  this  evi- 
dence :  and  how  ?  This  brings  me  to  the  interview  with  the  Bishop.  It 
seems  that  Mr.  BeaTe,  on  the  day  succeeding  this  transaction,  went  down 
to  College  Point,  and  related  the  facts  to  a  clergyman  whose  name  I  have 
forgotten. 

[Mr.  KETCHCM — Mr.  Kcrfoot.] 

Mr.  OGDEX — Yes.  to  Mr.  Kerfoot,  and  no  doubt  the  statement  was 
highly  colored.  This  clergyman  was  very  much  surprised,  and  said  he 
would  communicate  the  matter  to  Dr.  Muhlenberg.  He  did  so,  and  Dr. 
Muhlenberg — who,  I  am  happy  to  say,  behaved  in  a  manner  alike  cred- 
itable to  him  as  a  gentleman  and  as  a  Christian  minister, — came  to  the 
city  immediately,  and  consulted  Drs.  Milnor,  Wainwright,  and  Higbee. 
After  consultation,  those  gentlemen  determined  that  the  matter  ought  at 
once  to  be  brought  before  the  notice  of  the  Bishop,  and  they  accordingly 
proceeded  m  a  body  to  the  Bishop's  house.  When  they  got  there,  Dr. 
Milnor,  as  the  eldest  Presbyter,  I  presume,  was  called  on  to  break  the 
matter  to  the  Bishop.  Dr.  Miinor,  then,  according  to  his  statement,  ob- 
served that  there  were  serious  charges  against  the  Bishop,  to  the  effect, 
that  he  had  committed  some  indignities  upon  Mrs.  Beare,  and  then  referred 
to  Dr.  Muhlenberg  for  all  the  particulars.  Dr.  Muhlenberg  then  stated 
the  matter  more  fully,  referring  to  a  paper  containing  the  heads  of  the 
accusation.  After  the  charges  were  seated,  the  Bishop  declared  positively 
that  they  were  unfounded,  and,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Higbee, 
this  denial  was  made  with  some  indignation.  A  proposition  was  then 
made  by  somebody — by  whom  it  does  not  appear — some  think  it  was  made 
by  the  Bishop,  others  that  it  was  made  by  Dr.  Milnor — but  at  all  events  ft 
was  proposed  and  acceded  to  by  the  Bishop,  that  Mr.  Beare  should  be 
requested  to  come  to  the  city  and  meet  the  Bishop.  Next  day.  accord- 
ingly, all  came  again,  except  Dr.  Wainwright.  who  was  unavoidably  ab- 
sent. When  they  met,  the  Bishop  shook  Me.  Beare's  hand — expressed 
regret  that  he  should  suppose  any  thing  could  have  occurred  to  hurt  his 
feelings — expressed  great  regard  for  Mr.  Beare,  as  well  he  might,  for  he 
had  been  his  prottgt  and  been  brought  up  under  his  eye,  as  if  he  had  been 
his  own  son  : — the  Bishop  is  asked  if  he  meant  to  deny  what  had  been 
said  ?  He  replies  that  he  did  not  mean  to  call  in  question  the  veracity  of 
Beare,  but  that  she  was  mistaken ;  another  witness  says  that  the 

29 


.  expression  of  the  Bishop  was,  that  she  had  misconstrued  his  motives.    That 
.  being  the  main  pbini  oh  -which  Mr.  Beare  appeared  to  be  so  much  agitated, 
.was  ^tisfied  with  this  declaration  ctf  the  Bishop,,  and  there  the  matter 
,  then,  is'  the  testimony  offered  -to  sustain  the  evidence'  of 

' 


. 

.  J$f.  and  MK.  . 

'  ..,.•  .  btpw.jiii-llie.finst,  place,  what  'evidence,  have  you  as  to  what  passed  at  the 
.Bishop's   house  .•  during  thjat  .interview?      Charges'  had  been  .made-1—  Dr. 
repeated.*  hem..-  .'Dr.  .  MHnof  s.ays'  that  Dr.  Muhlenberg  read 
harges  frqni  'a  paper  ;  in  that  he  is  certainly  mistaken.     The  charges 
.  nq^Avritten,  x>ut..>  -THe  paper  in  question,  according  to  Dn.  Mnhlen- 
.  feerg's.  own1  account,  contained'  only  "  heads'?  9f  the  statement,  intelligibl-e 
..4inly  to  himself.;  :  and  Dr.  Higb.e'esfays  that  this  statement,  was  made  in  such 
,  ..  $.  confused  manner  Uiat  he  could  not.  have  Understood  it  had  he  not  heard 
.  \}Ue  story  before.  .  Dr.  Wainwright  says  that  his  memory  of  the  occurrences 
;M.  not;vary  plear,-as,  on  account  of  the  distress  in.  hisrfamily  at  the  time, 
'.his  mind  .was'.so-'Qccijpied  that  he  could  riot  undertake  to  recollect  all  that 
.'•  ,'.^assed,;  with  .perfect  !  accuracy.  .  Dr.  Mtihlenberg  •  was  very  much  excited, 
and  in  thut  condition-  his'  faculties  are  not  the  most  collectedj  but  he  thinks 
vh'e  re&d.the.  charges  icorrectlyi     Dr.  .Milnor  thinks  tha,t  the  statement.  waa 
]naade  from  a  paper  ;  but  I  believe  it.was  made  orally.     It  is  altogether  very 
doubtful  that  the  charges-  were  presented  specially,  in  all  their  enormity, 
.-,  to  fhe  Bishpp  j  at  all  -events,  hfc    denied    theni.      Well,  then   Mr.  Beare 

•  comes  the  next  dayjand  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  is-,  that  although 
'.  •  t^je  Bishpp.  denied  the  charges  on  the  first  day,  yet  that  he  admitted  them 

'dn.  the,  next.  .>    is:that  true?    ..Mr.  Bjeare  was.'  very  much  agitated—  why  ? 
Because,  ie  ^thought  .  that  the  vera,city  of  his  wife    was  suspected.  .   The 

•  .Jjfreat  thing  iu  his  .mind  was.  to  -get  rid  of  that  charge,  and  he  asked  the 

Bishojv  in-  \yqrds  or-  in  effect,  "Do  you  mean  to  call  in  question  what  my 
-'•  -<vife  has.  said  ?''   .  The  Bishop  replies,  "  I  do  not  mean  to-  call  in  question 
'^he  veracity  of  your-  Wife  at  all,  sir*     I  have  a  great  regard  for  you  and 
•your  \vjfe  3.  I  d<>  hot  pall  ini  question  her  veracity-^-but  slie  is  mistaken." 
Some  say  'that  the  .term  was,  "misconstrued  ;"  others:  that,  it  was,  '•  mis- 
'  .Understood,;"  but  the  purport  evidently  was>  that  she  had  been  "-mistaken." 
The  IJishop  never  meant  to  'adrpit  the  truth  of  the  charge,  but  he  denied 
that  hb  meant  to  call-  in  question  the  veracity  of  Mrs.  Beare,  hoping  thus 
•'..  to.  *illay..;  the.  excitement  and  agitatioo  of  her  husband  on  that  point.     Dr. 
•  <Higbee  says  he-so  undersjobd  k.     But  the  gentleman  says  that  the  conduct 
.•.   •  brl)r'.  Higbee  after  that  interview  was  very  extraordinary;  that  he  said  to 
DA  Milnpr,  ''  How.  belies!"  ahd.Hiat  he  said  to  Mr.  Beare,  "  Why,  if  lue 
touched  my  'wife,.!,  should  kick  him  Gut  of  the  house!"     What  is  Dr. 
H  ig  bee's  explanation  ?.    Surely  his  own  explanation  is  as  satisfactory,  and 
iSr'entitled  to  asirriuch  weight,  as  the  mere  inference  of  another  party.     He 
,'.;    jsa.ys  tl\atj.in  the  first  'place,  the  Bislrop.  denied  the  principal  charge  alto- 
gether; and  so.  .also  he  understood  him.  on  the  second,  occasion  :  bul  on  the 
first,  he-,  understood  .him  as  caljing  in  question  the  veracity  of  Mrs,  Beare, 
•.    .    •'  f^hile  he  denied.  -any  such  intention  on  occasion  of  the  second  interview; 
and   hence  Dr..  -Higbee   considered  him  inconsistent,  and  admits  that  he 
Uttght  have  ,  utternid.  the  exclamation  stated,  though  he  has  no  -recollection 
/.of  having  done^  so.     Well,  then,  as  regards  the  declaration  of  Dr.  Higbee, 
.'!  ihat  if.  the  Bishop,  had  touched  his  Wife,  he  would  have  kicked  him  out  of 
the  house,  the  .explanation  of  the  Doctor  is  —  and   it  is  satisfactory  —  that 
if  he  had  beUcqed  the.  Bishop  guilty,  he  would  have  ^  done  so  'and  so-;  but 

'  ''    "  '      "'       ''''  '  '  '  ' 


22* 

that  he  did  not  regard  him  as  guilty  is  evident,  he  says,  from  hid  agreeing 
with  Dr.  Milnor  not  to  say  another  word  about  the  matter.  If  Drs.  Milnor 
and  Muhlenberg  had  supposed  that  the  Bishop  admitted  on -this  occasion  the 
truth  of  the  charges,  and  contradicted  his  own  denial  of  the  previous  day, 
does  any  Bishop  here  suppose  that  they  would  have  concealed,  his  guiltj 
-and  agreed  to  say  nothing  more  about  the  matter?  -No.  The  very  fact 
that  these  venerable  and  pure-minded  men  came  to  such  a  conclusion  speaks 
volumes,  and  is  irresistible  conclusion  that  they  had  not  the  slightest  doubt 
of  the  Bishop's  innocence. 

I  have  now  offered  all  the  remarks  on  the  evidence- with  which  I  intend 
•to  trouble  the  Court. 

I  have,  however,  to  say  a  word  relative  to  the  pomt  in  this  case.  Every 
one  of  these  charges  has  been  supported  only  "by  one  witness.  •  The  rule  is 
well  settled,  in  my  opinion,  that,  both  by  the  divine  and  civil,  law.  one  wit- 
ness is  not  sufficient  to  convict  a  man  of.  such  charges  as  these.  I  hare  al- 
ways understood  thar,  by  the  Jewish  law,  ajid  also  by  the  Christian  taw,  a* 
laid  down  by  our  Saviour, -and  by  his  apostles,  and  sustained  by  the  prac- 
tice of  the. primitive  Church, 'the  testimony  of.  two  Avitnesses- was  absolutely 
necessary  to -convict- a  man' of -an  "offence;  .On  this  point  j  beg  to  cite  BttrrifS 
Ecclesiast.  Law,  vol.  ii.  2US,  Now  this  is  a  spiritual"  Court ;  and  accord- 
ing  to  this  authority,  no  Churchman  can-be  convicfed  upon.one  single  wit. 
ness,  there  must  be  at  least  two.  And  in  Gibson's  Cod&x,  1011,  the  same 
principle  is  laid  down3  and  commented  on  at  some  length.  The  same  prin- 
ciple applies  iu  cases  at  common  law.  Thus  in  the  case  of  perjury,  as? wa» 
stated  by  my  associate,  two  witnesses  are  necessary,  and  why  ?  Because 
the  oath  of  a  single  witness  cannot  be  taken  as  sufficient  proof  of  the  vio- 
lation of  his  oath  by  the  accused  party.  And  let  me  ask,  is  not  the  de- 
fendant here  under  oath  ?  I  know-of  no  oath  more  solemn  than  the  conse- 
cration vow.  Is  this  defendant,  then,  to  be  denied  the  privilege  which- the  *  . 
law  and  reason  extend  to  the  party  accused  of  perjury  ? 

But,  if  the  Court  please,  I  have  heard  it  intimated,  that  although  none  of 
the  charges  has  been  supported  by  *  he  requisite  amount  of  legal  testimrmy, 
yet  inasmuch  as  they  all  goto  prove  the  one  general  charge  of  immorality 
and  impurity,  they  are  to  be  added  together  and  th/own  into  the  scale.-- 
Against  that  doctrine  I  most  solemnly  protest  What  is  the  law  upon  this 
s'ubject?  It  expressly  prescribes  that  you  cannot  fix  a  charge  upon  a  man 
except  by -two  witnesses.  You  must -proceed -here  precisely  as  they  do  in 
courts  of  law  ;  every  specification  not  proTed  is  to- be  cast  aside,  and  each 
is  to  be  passed  upon  separately.  If  not,  what  is  the  consequence  ?  Here 
are  four  charges  :  taken  separately  they  are  nothing;  taken  together. they 
amount  to  something— ^(hat  four  eiphers  make  a  unit-: — according  to  a  spe--; 
cies  of  arithmetic  that  I  cannot  understand.  Now  not  one  of  these  charges- 
has  been  legally  proved.  They  are.  just  so  many  ciphers. 

.  if  the  Court  please.  I  shall  conclude  after  a  few  additional  remarks.     I 
have,  already  detained  you  too  long. 

There  does  appear  to  me,  with  all  due  deference  to  the  Presenting  BisH-. 
ops,  and  ariy  other  gentlemen  who  have  taken  an  active  part  in  these  .pro- 
ceedings,-not  only  a  disregard  of  the  peace  of  the  Church,  but  a  desire 
almost  to  break  irupieces  the  most  peaceful  Diocese  on  the  continent. 
One  hav[ng  more  general  confidence  in  the  purity  of  the  Bishqp  cannot 
exist.  These  Presenting  Bishops — with 'all  due  deference  i'-'say  it — are 
rending  the  Church-  They  were  bound,  in  my  feeble  judgment,  to  have 


228 

acted  very  differently.  Independently  of  all  other  considerations,  the  se- 
lection of  the  time  in  which  these  charges  were  made,  was  to  my.  mind  an  act 
of  as  gross  cruelty  as  could  be  perpetrated  by  any  men  upon  their  fellow, 
being.  At  the  very  moment  when  my  client  was  weighed  down  to  the  very 
dust  by  the  unfortunate  case  of  his  brother — when  he  and  his  family  could 
hardly  hold  up  their  heads  in  the  community- — that  moment  was  seized  upon 
to  rake  up  against  him  all  these  old  transactions,  passed  and  forgotten  years 
ago.  But  this  is  a  Court  of  mercy.  It  is  a  Court  organized  in  the  name 
of  the  great  God  of  justice  and  of  mercy.  From  your  decision  there  is  no 
appeal.  I  now  commit  this  case  to  your  hands,  with  the  earnest  prayer, 
that  you  may  be  enabled  to  decide  it  under  a  due  sense  of  your  solemn  ob- 
ligations to  the  Church,  to  justice,  and  to  your  God. 

HIRAM  KETCHUM,  Esquire,  then  concluded  the  summing  up  of 
evidence,  on  the  part  of  the  Presentment. 

May  it  please  the  Court : — 

I  now  rise  to  execute  the  last  act  of  the  most  painful  professional  duty  in 
which  I  have  ever  been  engaged.  If,  in  the-  course  of  this  trial  and  long 
investigation,  I  have  at  any  time  manifested  impatience,  or  discovered  any 
want  of  self-control,  I  freely  confess  that  I  have  acted  unworthily  of  the 
high  trust  committed  to  me,  and  I  now  make  the  only  atonement  in  my 
power,  by  asking  the  pardon  of  the  Court. 

I  shall,  after  a  few  preliminary  observations,  proceed  to  state  the  reasons 
for  the  opinions  which  I  have  formed  of  the  testimony  in  this  case.  These 
reasons  will,  I  doubt  not,  receive  from  the  Court  all  the  consideration  that 
they  merit ;  but  my  opinions,  any  further  than  they  are  sustained  by  sound 
arguments,  however  sincerely  entertained,  are  to  have  no  weight  with  the 
Court,  for  I  am  here  as  Counsel  in  the  cause.  As  Counsel,  from  the  first  I 
have  endeavored  to  conduct  the  case  with  liberality  and  candor;  but  still,  I 
have  been  advocating  one  side,  in  opposition  to  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side, 
and  my  opinions,  and  my  solemn  asseverations  as  to  my  opinions,  are  to  have 
just  as  much  weight  as  the  asseverations  of  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side, 
and  no  more,  and  that  is — nothing. 

It  has  not  been  my  duty  to  institute  that  thorough,  that  searching  scrutiny 
of  the  mind,  and  of  the  heart,  which  would  detect  and  expel  every  thought, 
every  feeling,  every  opinion,  and  every  prejudice,  inconsistent  with  the  im- 
partial  decision  of  this  case— that  has  not  been  my  duty,  but  that  is  the 
high  and  solemn,  and,  I  may  add,  awful  duty  of  every  member  of  this 
Court.  You  are  to  judge  this  case,  and  after  you  have  judged  it,  you  your- 
selves are  to  be  judged.  You  are  to  be  fudged,  not  by  the  Church  of  this 
Diocese  only,  but  by  that  great  company  which  composes  the  Church  of  the 
United  Stales,  and  by  the  public  at  large.  And  if  your  decision  shall  com- 
mend itself  to  the  approval  of  your  own  consciences,  in  the  sight  of  God,  it 
will,  I  doubt  not,  receive  the  approbation  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the 
public.  I  say  here,  what  as  an  Episcopalian  I  am  most  proud  to  say,  that 
I  have  an  abiding  confidence  not  only  in  the  learning,  but  in  the  wisdom 
and  purity  of  this  tribunal.  I  have  seen  your  action  on  former  occasions, 
and  I  believe  that  the  religious  community,  and  the  public  at  large  through- 
out the  United  States,  have  as  much  confidence  in  this  tribunal  as  in  any 
other  in  the  land.  I  believe  that  it  may  be  said,  without  boasting,  that  the 
Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  have,  at  all 


229 

times,  been  a  pure  body  of  men.  They  have  shown,  on  many  occasions, 
and  on  a  recent  occasion,  to  the  admiration  of  the  Protestant  world,  their 
purity  of  doctrine ;  and,  whenever  an  opportunity  presents,  they  are  pre- 
pared to  vindicate  their  purity  of  morals. 

I  shall  proceed  to  make  some  remarks  upon  the  evidence,  but  before  I  do 
so,  permit  me  to  notice  some  things  about  the  defence.  We  were  told  be- 
fore  we  came  here,  whether  on  the  authority  of  the  Respondent  or  not,  I 
will  not  say,  that  there  was  to  be  a  conspiracy  proved  against  the  Respon- 
dent— that  this  prosecution  was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy.  When  I  opened 
this  case  I  alluded  to  this  notorious  fact;  I  stated  then,  that  although  the 
defence  might  not  have  the  legal  right  to  enter  upon  such  a  course  of  evi- 
dence, yet  I  was  willing  that  they  should ;  I  promised  to  waive  all  legal 
objections  to  the  evidence,  if  offered.  Where  is  the  evidence  of  the  con- 
spiracy ?  Echo  answers,  where  ?  Throughout  this  long  investigation,  not 
one  witness  has  been  presented  to  prove  the  alleged  conspiracy.  We  of- 
fered to  sit  longer,  but  no  such  proof  has  been  attempted.  And  it  is  here 
proper  to  remark,  that  not  one  of  the  witnesses  who  have  appeared  to  sus- 
tain  these  charges,  has  exhibited  the  slightest  desire  to  do  so  from  motives: 
of  animosity  against  the  Respondent,  or  from  any  wish  that  this  matter 
should  be  prosecuted  against  him.  Where  is  the  evidence,  from  beginning 
to  end,  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler,  the  Misses  Rudderow,  or  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Beare,  had  any  desire  for  the  prosecution  of  this  case  ?  But,  it  is  said,  there 
are  other  parties  who  have  urged  this  matter  forward.  Who  are  they  I 
Why,  the  letter  introduced  here,  and  written  by  Mr.  Gallagher  to  Mr. 
Butler,  discloses  something  in  reply  to  that.  Here  is  the  letter :  it  is  dated 
at  New  York,  September  25th,  1844. 

"  REV.  AND  DEAR  BROTHER,-— 

"  After  so  long  an  interval  of  silence,  I  am  pained  to  renew  an  intercourse 
formerly  so  agreeable  to  myself,  by  reverting  to  a  subject  which,  to  a  mind 
like  yours,  must  be  attended  with  sensations  of  a  revolting  nature.  I  trust, 
however,  that  a  sense  of  duty,  which  could  alone  induce  me  to  address  you 
upon  such  a  subject,  will  overcome  your  instinctive  repugnance,  so  far  at 
least  as  to  leave  you  free  to  consider  what  course  it  becomes  you  to  adopt  hi 
view  of  the  demands  of  truth  and  righteousness.  I  am  led  to  address  you 
in  consequence  of  a  conversation  which  I  have  had  to-day  with  our  brethren 
Messrs.  T  rapier  and  Barnwell,  who  have  been  appointed,  as  you  are  aware, 
on  a  committee  to  investigate  the  truth  of  rumors  affecting  the  Seminary. 
Among  other  subjects,  the  reports  of  various  immoralities  alleged  against 
Bishop  B.  T.  Onderdonk,  which  have  long  been  afloat,  have  been  deemed 
within  the  scope  of  their  inquiries,  from  his  connection  with  the  institution. 
I  was  surprised  to  learn  from  them  that  your  name  had  been  mentioned  as 
one  who  had  been  exceedingly  aggrieved,  and  could  testify  to  the  most  se- 
rious delinquencies.  You  will  remember  a  conversation  which  I  had  with 
you  in  the  year  1839,  at  Palmyra,  in  which  you  recounted  the  aggravated 
injury  which  you  had  suffered.  I  had  regarded  this  in  so  confidential  a  light 
as  never  to  have  mentioned  your  name  in  connection  with  that  of  the  Bish- 
op, save  on  one  occasion  to  our  common  friend,  the  Rev.  Stuart  Hanckel, 
and  that  accompanied  by  the '  strictest  injunction  of  secrecy.  I  find,  how- 
ever, that  Mr.  Hanckel  has  inadvertently  communicated  the  affair  to  Mr. 
Barnwell,  who  not  being  aware  of  the  confidential  nature  of  the  communi- 
cation, felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  make  it  a  subject  of  inquiry.  I  stated  to  him 


230 

that  it  ought  not  to  be  divulged  without  your  consent,  upon  which 'he  ex- 

fressed  an  intention  to  write  you  on  the  subject.  While  I  deeply  regret  that 
have  been  unintentionally  the  means  of  thus  far  extending  the  knowledge 
of  a  transaction  of  so  painful  a  nature,  (which  I  have  learned,  however, 
since  my  arrival  in  this  city,  is  extensively  known  here,)  I  trust  that  you 
will  be  willing  to  make  that  sacrifice  of  feeling  which  the  present  crisis  and 
the  leadings  of  retributive  Providence  seem  to  demand,"  &c.  -You  have 
heard  the  whole  letter  read. 

Here  you  see  the  origin  of  this  proceeding. 

[Bishop  GADSDEN. — Is  that  letter  in  evidence  ? 

Mr.  KETCHUM. — It  was  referred  to  by  the  defence,  and  is  now  before  the 
Court.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM  proceeded — It  is  true  that  the  Clergy  of  this  Diocese  did 
not  move  in  this  matter,  but  certain  gentlemen  in  the  Diocese  of  South  Car- 
olipa  did  think  proper  to  move  in  it.  Had  they  a  right  to  do  so?  You 
know  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  Church.  These  gentlemen  thought 
there  was  a  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  which  belonged  to  the 
Church  at  large,  who  ought  not  to  be  intrusted  with  the  instruction  of  the 
students.  Did  it  belong  to  the  New  York  Diocese  alone  to  exercise  super- 
vision  over,  the  Professors  in  that  Seminary?  "Had  these  gentlemen  of 
South  Carolina,  indeed,  no  right  to  move  in  the  matter?  They  had  a  right, 
most  unquestionably,  and  they  have  availed  themselves  of  that  right.  They, 
and  the  committees  appointed  by  them,  did  move  in  the  matter ;  and  it  was 
their  suggestion  which  called  persons  together,  with  a  view  to  collect  and 
examine  these  flying  rumors,  in  order  to  see  if  grounds  for  charges  existed. 
They  found  that  there  were  grounds  for  charges.  They  made  the  investi- 
gation through  agents,  it  is  true.  The  charges  were  presented  to  the  House 
of  Bishops.  That  body  could  take  nd  action  on  the  application  from  South 
Carolina,  but  three  Bishops  could  present  the  matter  to  the  House,  and  have 
the. Respondent  tried.  These  three  Bishops  were  found,  and  now  that  the 
Presentment  has  been  made,  and  the  charges  investigated,  I  submit  to  the 
candor  and  good  sense  of  every  gentleman  composing  this  Court,  if  it  was 
not  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  for  the  good  of  religion,  and  for 
the  Respondent  himself,  that  this  investigation  should  be  made  ?  .  But  that's 
the  whole  history  of  the  origin  of  this  Presentment,  and  where  is  there  any 
thing  of  conspiracy.  These  gentlemen  have  presented  to  you  their  charges. 
Whether  they  had  good  reason,  or  not,  for  doing  so,  will  be  best  determined  by 
the  fact  whether  they  have  proved  them  or  notl  Even  if  the  charges  be  not 
proved,  there  are  sufficient  reasons  for  justifying  the  conduct  of  these  Pre- 
senters ;  and  if  the  charges  be  sustained,  you  will  of  course  say  that  they 
ha.ve  done  their  duty.  There  is  nothing  of  malice  in  that.  Thus  much  for 
all  that  we  have  heard  about  conspiracy.  Thus  much  for  what  1  believe 
has  been  stated  by  the  Respondent  himself  as  the  cause  of  this  prosecution. 
Thus  much  for  w-hat  one  of  the  religious  presses  of  this  city  has  said  on  this 
subject.  Where  is  the  evidence  of  conspiracy  ?  It  is  not  here — it  is  not 
anywhere. 

Again,  the  learned  gentlemen,  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  have  both  gone 
through  iheir  defence  with  great  power;  and  I  submit  to  every  member  of 
this  honorable  Court,  if  it  is  not  perfectly  apparent  that  if  you  find  the  Bishop 
innocent  of  these  charges,  you  have  to  find  that  every  one  of  the?e  witnesses 
Who  swore  against  him  is  perjured,  There  is  no  alternative  left  you  by  the 


argument  of  the  Counsel :  "you  have  to  find  that.  Mr.  Butler,  a  very  respect* 
.able  presliyterof  this  Church,  and  his  wife,  a  communicant  of  the  Church-?- 
that  the  two' Misses  Rudderow,  of -spotless  character,  actively  engaged  in 
promoting  the  objects  of  the 'Church — :t!iat  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare, '-also. of  ttfe 
highest  character,  are  all  perjured  witnesses]..  If  you  find  the  Bishop  i»- 
nocent,  they  go  from  this- Court  bearingj  in  all  time  to  come,  the.  brand  of 
perjury.  There,  is  no  escape  from  that  conclusion.  Tire  Counsel  have  left 
us  no  escape,  for  they  todk  no  other  ground  in  their  defence-  Such,  then,, 
is  the  inevitable  consequence,  so  far  as  affects  the  witnesses,  of  a  verdict  of 
acquittal:  •  '  '.  • 

..  On  the"  other  hand, -if  you  find  the  Respondent  guilty,  there  'are  conse- 
quences of  the  most  deplorable  character  {hat  would  result.  You  are  try. 
ing  a  brother — you  are  to  determine  whether- he  shall  be  cut  off,- — for  there 
is  no  middle  ground  on  this  subject.  -You  are  to  determine  whether  or  not 
He  is  to  be  deprived  of  "his  high  office-r-whether,  in  all  time  .to  e.ome,  he  is. 
to  be  shut  out  from  the  sympathies  of  mankind — whether  that -is  to  happen 
to  him,  which  would  cause  his  wife,  and  his  Children,  to  regret  that  he  had 
not  died  when  he  could  'have  "left  them  the  inheritance  of  an  honorable 
name,  though  that  had  been  the  only  inheritance  he  could  bequeath.  You 
are  to  cut  off  the  man  with  whom:  you  have  often  taken  sweet  counsel — 
who  has  long  been  your  brother — and  he  is  to  stand  divided  -from  you  for 
ever  J  I  'believe  that  you  have  not  so  much,  of- the  Roman  in  you,  as  to-- 
be insensible  to  these,  consequences,  I  know,  and  I  rejoice  to  say  that  F 
know,  your  hearts  yearn  for  his 'acquittal.  B"ut  while  your  hearts  yearn 
for  his  acquittal,  those  same  hearts,  like  the  heart  of  .Bli,  the- priest  of  old> 
tremble  for  the  ark  of  God  committed  to- your  keeping.-  .'.'.' 

You  are  to  decide  this  case  without  respect  to  consequences  on  'the.'pne 
side  or  the  other.  -You  are  to  determine  whether  the  Respondent  is  guilty 
or  not  of  these  charges — that  is  the  question,  and  that  is.  to  be  decided  from 
the  evidence.  ; 

Now  I  shall  proceed,  in  the  first  place,  to  investigate  the. case  of  Mrs.. 
Beare.  I  do  this,  because,  as  I  shall  show- rhe  Court,  that  case  is  entirely 
free  from  all  .the difficulties  which  have  been  attempted  to  be  raised  here  . 
with  respect  to  the  evidence,  and  the  number  of  witnesses.  L  therefore  wish 
to  take  up  that  case  in  the  first  instance,  which  is  clear  of  all- these!  objec- 
tions.: I  mean-  to  go  th/ough  with  the  examination  of.  Mrs.  Beare's  case, 
candidly,  deliberately  ;  and  if  I  should  state  any  portion  of  the -evidence1 
differently'  from  the  notes  of  the  Clerk,  or  of  any  member  of  the  Court,  I 
pray  to  be  corrected  at  'the  time,  although  I  am  of  6pinion  that  the  entire 
evidence  should  be  read  over  to  the  Court,  be  fore  they  proceed  to  deliberate 
on 'their  judgment;  and,  therefore,  any  slight' inaccuracy  of  mine  may -not 
be  of  much, -importance.  Still,  I  desire  to  be  corrected  if  I  should  appear 
to  be  m  error  on  any  point.  • 

[Bishop  Ivfcs.-— May  I  ask  the  Counsel,  whether,  in  case  of  any  do'ubt. 
resting  oa  the  mind,  of  any  mem'berof  the  Court,  he  may 'not  be  at  liberty  - 
to  suggest  it  to  the  Counsel  in  order  to  have  it  cleared -up  ? 

Mr.  KETCHUM.— Certainly,  sir.] 

Mr.  KEfctfuM  proceeded — What  js  the -case  of  Mrs.  Beare  ?     It  appears 
Mrs.- Beare  was  married  on  the  8th  June,  1842;  on.  the  12th  of  July  of  . 
the  same  year,  she  was  first  introduced  to  Bishop  Onderdonk ;  on  the  17th- 
day  of  the  same  month,  the  Bishop  visited  the  church  of  which  Mr.  Beare 
is  pastor,  and  that  in  the1  drive   home   the   Bishop  put  his  arm   around 


232 

Mrs.  Beare,  and,  in  an  unbecoming  manner,  pressed  his  hand  upon  her 
bosom. 

[Bishop  GADSDEN. — I  really  think  that  the  Counsel  should  read  the  Present- 
ment and  the  evidence,  in  order  that  the  discrepancies  may  be  seeo. 

Bishop  POLK. — I  hope  the  Counsel  may  not  be  interrupted. 

Bishop  GADSDE.N-.— I  made  the  suggestion  in  accordance  with  the  request 
of  Counsel  himself. 

Mr.  KETCHTOI. — I  will  consider  the  question  of  a  variance  between  the 
allegations  in  the  Presentment  and  the  proof,  when  I  come  to  examine  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Bolles.] 

Mr.  KjsffcHUM  proceeded  with  the  statement  of  Mrs.  Beare's  testimony : 
"  Immediately  after  their  return  home,  Mrs.  B.  told  her  husband  that  she 
did  not  wish  to  ride  with  the  Bishpg  in  the  afternoon,  as  she  thought  him  too 
familiar  in  his  manners.  She  told  ner  husband  the  occurrence  of  the  morn- 
ing— he  expressed  great  surprise,  but  remarked  to  her — '  if  you  can  avoid 
it,  do  not  let  it  alter  your  manner  towards  him  while  he  is  in  our  house.'  " 

In  the  interim,  between  services,  Mrs.  Beare  testifies,  that  "the  Bishop 
put  his  arm  around  me,  and  raised  my  head  by  my  chin,  and  kissed  me." 

"After  the  afternoon  service,  went  to  the  house  of  Joseph  L.  Franklin — 
there  was  some  levity  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop — came  away  about  nine 
o'clock  in  the  evening — rode  home  in  a  one-horse  family  barouche — Mrs. 
Beare  sat  on  the  back  seat  on  the  right  of  the  Bishop,  her  husband  sitting 
in  frcnt  of  her,  and  the  nephew  of  Mr.  Beare  sitting  before  the  Bishop. 
On  the  drive  the  Bishop  put  his  arm  around  Mrs.  B.'s  waist — then  raised  it 
and  put  it  across  the  .back  of  her  neck— -thrust  h-is  hand  into  the  neck  of  her 
dress,  down  into  her  bosom — she  threw  his  hand  from  there — he  immediate- 
ly put  it  upon  the  lower  part  of  her  person — she  pushed  it  aside  from  there 
— he  then,  with  the  other,  repeated  the  same  on  the  other  side  of  her  person, 
but  removed  it  towards  the  centre  of  her  person — she  threw  it  aside.  When 
the  hand  was  put  in  the  neck  of  her  dress,  it  was  upon  her  naked  bosom  ; 
the  hand  upon  her  person  pressed  her  person  palm  inward — the  other  hand 
he  placed  near  her  krtee — removed  it  along  her  leg  up  to  her  hip,  and  the 
centre  of  her  person — palm  of  the  hand  inward." 

I  believe  every  word  of  that  statement  is  true.  I  am  going  to  show  that 
it  is  true — I  am  going  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  true.  I  believe  that  it  is 
true,  first,  because  Mrs.  Beare  has  sworn  to  it.  Who  is  Mrs.  Beare  ? 
Many  years  ago,  and  before  I  was  a  student  of  law,  I  remember  having 
been  in  Court  in  this  city  during  the  progress  of  some  interesting  trial,  and 
I  heard  Bishop  Hobart  called  on  the  stand  to  testify  as  to  the  character  of 
a  lady ;  and  the  Bishop's  answer  struck  me  so  forcibly  that  I  have  never 
forgotten  it.  "I  have  known  her  well,"  said  he,  "and  jier  character  is 
more  than  irreproachable."  I  apply  that  phrase  to  P.Irs.  Beare  ; — her  char- 
acteris  more  than  irreproachable.  She  is  a  lady  of  purity — of  honor — of 
piety — or,  to.sum  it  all  up  in  the  description  given  of  her  by  the  Respondent 
himself — "  she  is  a  pastor's  good  wife."  .  I  believe  her  statement,  then,  be- 
cause she  has  sworn  to  it.  I  saw  her  manner  as  she  delivered  her  testi- 
mony, and  I  have  had  some  experience  in  observing  the  manner  of  witnesses 
— from  her  manner,  I  believed  her. 

Well,  then,  how  does  she  proceed  with  her  statement  ?  She  communicated 
the  matter  to  her  husband,  immediately  on  arriving  home — and  what  did 
he  do  ?  Why,  I  will  tell  what  he  did  not  do — he  did  not  do  what  the  learn- 
ed Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity  Church,  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,  would  have 


233 

done — he  did  not  kick  the  Bishop  out  of  the  house — no,  he  did  not  do  that, 
but  I  will  tell  you  what  he  did — he  prayed  tcilh  him,  sir.  I  admit  that  that 
was  not  natural.  I  believe  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  had  got  a  little  beyond 
human  nature  in  this  respect.  I  admit,  that  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ, 
he  .had  something  of  the  spirit  of  that  Master,  who  directed  his  disciples  to 
pray  for  those  <;  who  despitefully  used  them."  He  said  to  his  wife,  "  after 
prayers  we  will  think  of  this  matter — let  us  first  pray."  He  performed 
family  worship,  in  company  with  the  Bishop,  and  then  they  retired  to  their 
chamber.  They  passed  a  sleepless  night.  What  followed  in  that  chamber 
we  are  not  permitted  to  ask  :  we  only  know  that  they  did  not  sleep — and 
when  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  are  laid  bare,  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  be  seen, 
that  they  did  that  unnatural  thing  in  that  chamber  which  would  not  have 
disgraced  a  Doctor  of  Divinity  of.  Trinity  Church — they  prayed  .for  the 
Bishop ! 

What  next  did  they  do  ?  Mr.  Beare  accompanied  the  Bishop  next  day ; . 
he  did  not  reprove  him.  I  admit  that  he  ought  to  have  reproved  him  to  his 
face.  And  when  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  put  the  question,  (it  was  a 
proper  one,)  "  Did  you  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  alone  ?"  I  admit  it,  it  was 
a  proper  question  ;  I  admit  that  Mr.  Bcare  ought  to  have  been  able  to  an- 
swer  in  the  affirmative.  But,  if  he  did  not  do  that,  he  did  the  next  best 
thing  :  he  went  to  the  nearest  clergyman,  his  brother  of  about  the  same 
age.  and  to  him  he  communicated  the  matter.  And  what  did  they  do  ? 
They  knelt  down  and  prayed  to  Almighty  God  for  guidance.  Now  this 
may  be  called  very  Methodistical — this  may  be  called  fanatical ;  but  I  do 
not  believe  that  a  Court  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  will  so  decide.  I  believe  they  will  even  *go 
so  far  as  to  declare  that  they  consider  this  was  better  than  to  have  kicked 
the  Bishop  out  of  the  house,  though  we  have  the  authority  of  a  Doctor  of 
Divinity  in  favor  of  that,  as  the  proper  course  in  such  a  case.  But  they 
prayed  to  God  for  guidance.  When  he  told  that  story  to  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Kerfoot,  now  a  Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  Maryland,  and  who,  I  have 
been  informed,  has  been  here  since  this  trial  commenced, — I  believe  he  told 
the  story  as  he  tells  it  now.  I  could  not  call  the  witness  to  say  whether  he 
did  not  tell  it  then  as  now,  but  the  defence  could  have  called  him  ;  but  they 
did  not.  If  any  discrepancy  had  existed  between  the  story  of  Mr.  Beare, 
as  told  by  him  then,  and  as  he  tells  it  now,  it  would  havo  been  shown ;  but 
Mr.  Beare  told  the  story  to  Mr.  Kerfoot  as  he  tells  it  now. 

[Bishop  WnrrriNGHAM. — I  beg  to  interrupt  the  Counsel  for  a  moment,  as 
he  has  appealed  to  me.  He  is  bringing  before  the  Court  what  is  not  in  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  KETCHCM. — Mr.  Kerfoot  is  a  Presbyter  of  Maryland.  I  have  un- 
derstood that  he  is  now  in  this  city,  and  has  bern  here  since  the  Court  com- 
menced its  sessions.  I  only  leave  the  matter  before  the  Bishops  as  a  matter 
of  inference.  If  Mr.  Beare  had  told  that  story  differently  to  Mr.  Kerfoot, 
could  we  not  have  had  him  ? 

Bishop  WHITTINGHAM. — Did  the  Counsel  try  to  get  his  evidence  ? 

Mr.  KETCHUM. — I  say.  as  a  matter  of  law  we  could  not  produce  him — we 
could  not  sustain  our  own  witness  in  that  way  ;  but  the  other  side  could 
have  impeached  him  by  Mr.  Kerfoot,  if  his  testimony  would  have  impeached 
Mr.  Beare.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  he  would  not  have  come  if  request- 
ed. The  Bishop  of  Maryland  will  not  so  understand  me.] 

Mr.  KJETCUUM  proceeded — The  next  day.  or  about  the  same  time,  the  Rev. 

30 


234 

Dr.  Muhlenberg  waS  informed  of  the  matter — by  whom  it  was  taken  down, 
not  verbatim,  but  the  particulars  commuted  to  writing.  And  Dr.  Muhlen- 
berw,  like  a  Christian,  (and  I  rejoice'to  give  him  all  due  praise  for  his  con- 
duct,) came  to  this  eity  for  the  purpose  of  advising  >vith  his- brethren  how 
the  matter  should  be  communicated  to  his  Diocesan.  He  conferred  with 
Drs*.  Milnor,  Wainwright,  and  Higbee  ;'  and  they  resolved  to  communs 
cate-if,  and  they  did  communicate  it  to  the  Bishop.  What  occurred  at  that 
interview  ?  We  are  to  decide  this  matter  according  to  the  best  evidence  in 
our  possession.  tye  are  not  to  conjecture,  but  to  go  according  to  the  rules 
of  evidence.  Now' what  took  place  ?  Let  us  hear  what  Dr.  Milnor  says: 
"  I  stated  .19  him  the  purpose  of-our  visit.  This  was  an  allegation  made  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Beai'e,  of  improper  familiarities  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop 
towards,  his  wife.  'I  told  him  that  these  were  said  to  have  occurred  in  a 
carrjage,  in  which  he  rode  with  Mrs.  Beare — in  the.  first  place,  in  going  to 
or  from  the  church'. in  the  forenoon,  (the  church  was,  as  1  understood,  the 
church  at  Little  Neck,  where  the  Bishop  confirmed  that  day  ;)  that  famili- 
arities of  a  still  more  objectionable  kind  had  been  offered  by  the  Bishop  in 
the  .evening,  in  riding  from  a  house  where  they  had  taken  tea." 

This  is  the  general  statement  to  which  Dr.  Milnor  swears.  He  prepared 
the  way  for  the  'statement  of  Dr.  Muhlenberg.  Let  us  now  hear  what  he 
says,  as  he  is  the  person  most  likely  to  remember  with  clearness  and  distinct- 
ness the  statement  made  by  him,  as  it  had  been  most  probably  a  matter  of 
premeditation  :  "  After  Dr.  Milnor  had  stated  the  object  of  the  interview,  I 
atated  to  the  Bishop  what  I  had  received  from  Mr.  Beare  a  few  days  pre- 
vious, concerning  certain  liberties  which  Mr.  Beare  said  the  Bishop  had  taken 
with  his  wife.  I  entered  into  the  particulars  from  notes  which  I  took  when 
Mr.  Beare  related  tlie  circumstances  to  me.  The  Bishop  denied  each  of  the 
particulars  as  I  stated  them — I  mean  the  particulars  of  the  offence  alleged. 

".  What  were  the  alleged  offences  as  you  stated  them  to  the  Bishop  ? 

"A.  I  don't  know — that  the  Bishop  had  kissed  Mrs.  Beare ;  that  he  had 
put  his  hand  on  her  naked  bosom,  and  on  her  body  below  the  corset  bone, 
outside  of  her  dress. 

'  «.Q.  Did  you  state  the-  particulars  to  the  Bishop,  fully,  as  they  had  been 
stated  to  you  by  Mi*.  Beare  ? 

"A.  I  did. 

^Q.TJid  the  Bishop  deny  these  allegations  in  general  or  in  detail  ? 

"  A«  He  denied-them  one  by  one  as  I  proceeded,  except  that  of  kissing 
Mrs.  Beare. 
•  "  Q.  What  was  the  manner  of  the  Bishop  when  he  made  these  denials  ? 

"  A.  It  seemed  to  be  that  of  great  astonishment." 

This,  then,  is  the  evidence  as  to  what  occurred  at  that  interview.  *  What 
did  the  Bishop  say?  Why,  he  indignantly,  and  with  astonishment,  denied 
(he  charges,  all  and  singular  ;  and  I  will  tell  you  what  more  he  did,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Higbee  ;  and  that  appears  not  to  have  been  pre- 
meditated and  studied — he  carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  camp  :  he  said 
if  any  improper  feeling  existed,  it  must  have  been  on  the  part  of  Mrs. 
Beare  !  He  charged  it  upon  her  :  if  this  matter  were  persisted  in,  he  was 
sorry  to  say  he  would  be  bound  to  lake  that  ground.  Thus  stands  the  case, 
by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  two  witnesses — opposed  only,  and  not  op. 
posed  .fully,  by  one— and  he  not  remembering  particularly  what  occurred  ; 
but  thus  stands  the  matter  as  it  was  left  by  the  parlies  on  that  day.  The 
Bishop  stood  where  his  Presbyters  rejoiced  to  see  him  stand — erect — a 


235 

Bishop.  "  I  deny  it — there  has  been  no  impropriety  on  my  part."  Well, 
the  next  day  these  gentlemen,  with  the  exception  of  Dr.  VVainwright,  saw 
the  Bishop  again,  by  appointment;  and  with  them  came  also  Mr.  Beare. 
The  Bishop  on  this  occasion  thought  proper, — I  do  not  know  that  the  cir- 
cumstance is  of  any  consequence,  but  it  is  as  well  to  mention  it, — he 
thought  proper  to  shut  the  door;  he  took  them  into  the  back  room, -and 
closed  the  door.  I  will  now  ask  your  attention  to  Mr.  Beare's  evidence  : — 
Mr.  Beare  being  requested  to  state  what  occurred  at  his  interview  with  the 
Bishop,  in  company  with  Dr.  Milnor  and  others,  said,  ."that  Bishop  On- 
derdonk  commenced  by  speaking  of  me  very  affectionately — stating  what  a 
high  regard  and  respect  he  had  for  me — that  he  would  not  intentionally  (I 
think  that  was  the  word)  wound  the  feelings  of  Mrs.  Beare  or  myself.  I 
then  asked  whether  he  denied  what  Mrs.  Beare  said  he  had  been  guilty  of. 
He  said  he  did  not  deny  it ;  but  that  Mrs.  Beare  had  misunderstood  or  mi*, 
conceived  his  motives.  He  then  told  me  to  offer  an  apology  to  Mrs.  Beare, 
and  if  she  demanded  any  further  apology,  he  was  willing  to  make  her 
one." 

This  timid  man.  that  seems  not  to  have  had  courage  enough  to  kick  any. 
body  out  of  the  house,  but  who  knew  how  to  pray — this  timid  man,  who  i» 
afraid  to  speak  to  a  Bishop,  except  when  that  jewel,  his  wife — and  she  is,  I 
am  sure  the  Court  all  agree  with  me  in  saying,  indeed,  a  "jewel"' — is  at- 
tacked ; — this  timid  man  is  now  afraid  of  no  man  ;  he  boldly  demands  of 
the  Bishop,  "  Do  you  deny  what  Mrs.  Beare  has  said  ?"  And  the  Bishop 
says,  "  Oh  !  I  don't  deny  it — I  don't  deny  it — but  she  mistook  my  motive!** 
He  don't  deny  the  acts,  but  he  denies  the  guilt.  Such  is  the  evidence  aa 
to  this  interview,  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Beare,  and  by  Drs.  Milnor  and  Muhleo- 
berg. 

We  have,  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare,  the  evidence  of  four  witnesses; 
First,  we  have  that  of  Mrs.  Beare,  to  the  commission  of  the  acts,  from 
which  she  draws  an  inference  of  impurity ; — Secondly,  we  have  that  of 
Mr.  Beara,  Dr.  Milnor,  and  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  to  the  admission  of  the  factar 
by  the  Bishop,  though  he  denies  the  inference.  Now,  am  I  mistaken,  is 
there  any  learned  Bishop  here  who  is  pressed  by  this  argument  as  to  the 
necessity  of  more  than  one  witness  ?  Well,  then,  here  we  have  four  wit- 
nesses  to  the  fact ;  for  the  confession  of  a  party,  is  the  highest  evidence  in 
the  law.  ;-  A  voluntary  confession  made  by  a  person  who  has  committed 
an  offence,  is  evidence  against  him,  upon  which  he  may  be  convicted,  al- 
though the  confession  is  totally  uncorroborated  by  other  evidence."  "  The 
voluntary  confession  of  the  party  in  interest,"  says  Chief  Baron  Gilbert, 
"  is  reckoned  the  best  evidence  ;  for,  if  a  man  swearing  for  his  interest 
can  give  no  credit,  he  must  certainly  give  most  credit  when  he  swears 
against  it."  Roscoe's  Criminal  Evidence,  35.  -  Here,  then,  is  the  proof 
that  the  facts  were  committed — proof  only  of  one  witness  as  to  the  guilt ; 
but  that  is-an  inference  which  the  Court  may  make  from  the  facts.  Mrs. 
Beare  can  only  infer  guilt  from  the  acts.  If  a  man  knocks  me  down,  I 
can  swear  that  he  intentionally  knocked  me  down,  and  contrary  to  law  ; 
and  yet  the  criminality  consists  in  the  intent,  which  is  to  be  inferred  from 
the  act ;  and,  in  cases  where  but  one  intent  can  be  inferred  from  a  partic- 
ular act,  by  the  common  consent  of  mankind,  the  law  infers  that  intent. 
Now,  what  but  a  guilty  intent,  can  be  inferred  from  a  man  putting  his 
hand  in  the  naked  bosom  of  a  young  and  beautiful  woman  ?  The  Bishop 
denied  the  justice  of  such  an  inference  in  his  case,  but  I  think  the  judg- 


236 

irient  of  this  Court  will  hardly  sustain  him.  These  acts  are  proved  and 
admitted — the  inference  of  guilt  is  irresistible  from  the  acts— • -and  there. 
fore,  the  guilt  of  the  Respondent,  in  the  case'of  Mrs.  Beare,  is  established 
by  demonstration  little  short  of  mathematical.  But  one  witness  seems  to 
attach  a  different  md&ning  to  what  the  Bishop  said 

[Bishop  Iv^s — May  I  make  one  remark  ?  There  is  a  part  of  Dr.  Mil- 
nor's  evidence  to  which  I  wish  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Counsel.  It  is 
the  concluding  portion  of  it : — "  The  Bishop  replied,  '  In  relation  to  rumors 
of  this  kind,'  "  &c.  It  seems  to  me  that  he  regarded  this  rumor  of  Mrs. 
Beare,  as  connected  with  others  of  a  similar  nature,  which  he  appears  to 
deny.  Dr.  Milnor  immediately  replied,  not  as  if  the  Bishop  had  admitted 
these  things,  but  says,  "  I  don't  know  how  that  might  be."] 

Mr.  KETCHTTM — If  there  is  any  thing  to  be  inferred  from  that  fact  favor- 
able to  the  Respondent,  he  is  certainly  entitled  to  it ;  but  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  the  same  witness  that  swears  to  that  fact,  testifies  to  the  other 
facts,  as  to  the  admission — and,  in  these  particulars,  he  is  corroborated  by 
another  witness.  Now,  admitting  the  force  of  the  argument  as  to  the 
number  of  witnesses  required,  how  do  we  stand  ?  Here  is  Mrs.  Beare'g 
statement  as;originally  made,  proved  not  only  by  herself,  but  by  the  testi- 
mony of  others.  It  is  proved — it  is  demonstrated.  If  there  be  any  defec- 
tive link  in  this  chain  of  demonstration,  I  should  like  to  see  it  pointed  out. 
Well,  then;  if  we  have  fairly  arrived  at  this  conclusion,  what  have  we 
proved  ?  We  have  proved  "  ADULTERY  IN  HEART  ;" — and,  if  the  view  of 
the  Counsel  on  the  other  side  be  correct,  that  when  a  Bishop  commits 
adultery  in  his  heart,  he  is  a  Traitor  to  his  Church,  because  he  has  vio- 
lated  his  consecration  vow — then  we  have  proved  him  to  be  a  Traitor. 

If  it  be  true,  as  is  contended  by  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side,  that  his 
oath  of  allegiance  to  his  Church  is  violated,  when  he  is  guilty  of  such  acts, 
then,  we  have  proved  him  not  only  an  adulterer  in  heart,  but  a  traitor 
and  a  perjurer !  Here  we  are  :  these  are  no  inferences  of  my  own  ma- 
king— these  are  inferences  from  the  facts — which  cannot  be  questioned — 
which  cannot  be  denied  : — they  result  not  from  the  ingenuity  of  Counsel, 
but  from  putting  together  the  evidence,  which  any  man  can  do.  Blrt  what 
is  the  evidence  in  opposition  ?  Why,  I  need  not  go  over  the  testimony  of 
Dr.  Higbee,  whom  I  have  often  heard  bear  eloquent  testimony,  and  always 
with  more  pleasure  than  on  this  occasion.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  Dr. 
Higbee  has  any  design  to  waver  from  the  truth,  either  in  one  way  or  the 
other : — I  do  not  believe  he  has.  But  Dr.  Higbee  has  reflected  upon  this 
subject — perhaps  I  am  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  he  is  a  friend  of  the  Bishop 
— that  he  earnestly  desires  his  acquittal.  He  has  reflected  on  this  subject, 
and  his  recollections  have  .taken  the  mould  of  his  desires.  I  have  not, 
therefore,  the  same  confidence  in  what  Dr.  Higbee  says,  for  this  human 
heart  is  a  very  deceitful  thing ;  I  have  not  as  much  confidence  in  what 
he  says  now,  as  in  what  he  said  at  the  time  of  his  interview  with  the 
Bishop — and  what  did  he  say  then  ? — "  What  a  liar  he  is !" — That's  Dr. 
Higbee  speaking  out  the  impulses  of  his  heart  on  the  occasion.  "  What  a 
liar  he  is !" — Why  ?  Because  that  Bishop  whom  he  had  seen  on  the  pre- 
vious day,  standing  proudly  erect,  saying,  "  I  am  not  thus  to  be  assailed— 
if  I  do  not  owe  it  to  myself,  I  owe  it  to  my  family — to  the  Church — to  the 
community,  to  repel  this  attack— I  deny  the  charge !" — he  saw  on  the  next 
day,  descending  to  be  the  meek  and  humble  apologist  to  the  man  who  had 
injured  him !  He  saw  him  put  himself  almost  on  his  knees  before  the  mau 


v-  * 

. 

had  dare!  r>  calumniate  him ! — HTST  conld  he  sympathize  with  that 
conduct  ?  I  do  ir-t  mean  exactly  to  say.  tint  a  Bishop  ought-  to  hare 
knocked  down  a  man  that  would  dars  to  tell  him  so.  *But  I  believe  be 
should  stand  erect,  and  say,  "  I  deny  ft  P'  When  smitten,  his  Divine 
.-  had  said — -  If  I  have  done  evil,  bear  witness  of  the  evil — bat,  if 
well,  why  smitest  thou  me  ?"  So  the  Bishop,  if  innocent,  ought  to  have 
said — •'  if  I  have  done  well,  why  slanderest  thou.  me  ?"  Instead  of  this  be 
pots  himself  almost  on  his  knees  before  this  man,  and  admits  that,  which 
en  the  preceding  day,  he  had  so  indignantly  denied — so  that  Dr.  Muhlen- 
berg  testifies  that  be  was  not  satisfied  with  the  Bishop's  conduct  in  the 
affair — and  Dr.  Higbee  leaves,  exclaiming,  "  What  a  lie  he  told  P* 

But  we  are  told  that  although  these  gentlemen  have  sworn  to  what  took 
place  on  that  occasion,  that  because  they  agreed  to  say  nothing  about  h, 
we  must  draw  the  inference  that  they  were  perfectly  satisfied  of  the  Bish- 
op's innocence.  Is  that  logical  I  Dr.  Muhlenberg  was  not  satisfied. 
Dr.  Higbee  did  not  seem  to  be  satisfied,  from  bis  strong  remark  already 
referred  to.  The  agreement  was  to  pass  the  matter  over,  it  is  true  ;  and 
that,  it  is  alleged,  proves  just  the  contrary  of  what  is  asserted,  that  they 
were  satisfied  of  his  innocence.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  not  the  just 
inference.  They  may  have  been  satisfied  with  his  tears  of  penitence. 
They  may  have  bad  a  thousand  reasons,  which  they  were  not  bound  to 
unfold  to  the  Court,  for  refraining  from  making  these  things  publicly 
known — they  may  have  seen,  as  I  am  told  was  the  fact,  that  there  was 
then  no  canonical  way  of  getting  this"  offence  properly  investigated ;  and 
that,  perhaps,  the  offender  bad  wiped  out  the  offence  by  his  penitential 
tears : — and,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  worth  while  to  proceed.  But,  by 
their  own  testimony,  that  action  on  their  part  does  not  prove,  what  has  beea 
sought  to  be  inferred  from  it.  that  they  thought  the  Bishop  innocent. 

.  have  I  redeemed  my  pledge?  Have  I  proved  that  every  word 
that  Mrs.  Beare  states  is  true  ?  If  I  have,  what  follows  ?  Why,  we  have 
surmounted  all  the  difficulties  in  the  case  from  beginning  to  end.  •  There 
is  not  a  single  objection  which  came  from  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side, 
which  is  not  obviated  by  this  very  act  and  these  verv  conclusions. 

What  is  the  great  argument  of  our  opponents  ?  Whv.  that  the  Bishop 
did  not  commit  these  acts,  because  it  was  impossible !  I  admit  the  force  of 
that  argument.  I  say  to  this  bouse  of  venerable  Bishops,  that  no  accusa- 
tion of  a  private  person  is  to  be  taken  against  a  Bishop,  of  a  high  offence, 
without  strong  evidence  of  its  truth.  I  say.  if  one  of  you  who  has  led  a 
godly  life  for  a  number  of  years,  were  accused  by  any  one  person,  I  care 
not  how  high  his  standing  in  society,  or  how  unimpeachable  bis  veracity — 
a  consistent,  unim  peached  character — and  the  nigh  obligation  to  purity  rett> 
ing  upon  you,  are  to  be  a  shield  which  should  ward  off  all  ordinary  attack* 
— that  is  of  itself  enough.  The  general  good  character  of  any  man  is  not 
worth  having  unless  it  furnish  such  a  shield.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  of  a 
Bishop  that  he  would  do  an  act  of  the  description  charged,  contrary  to  bis 
TOWS,  and  to  his  best  interests.  Such  a  charge  is  not  to  be  believed  or  en- 
tertained for  a  moment,  unless  made  out  on  competent  proof.  But  when  it 
is  made  out — when  it  is  proved  tha't  he  is  capable  of  committing  such  an 
act  once,  the  bar  is  at  occe  removed  to  the  improbability  of  the  repetition 
of  the  act  in  any  circumstances ;  prove  to  me  that  he  is  capable  of  doing  it 
in  the  secret  chamber,  and  I  draw  the  inference  that  he  is  capable  of  coo»- 
it  anywhere.  Prove  to  me  that  he  has  once  so  far  overcome  hi* 


238 
.convictions  of  «My,  and  violated  his  solemn  vow;  though  no  eye  but  God's 


a  rock,  ;tbe  way  of  a  bird"  in  the.  air,  the  Way  of  a  man'  with  a  maid."  First 
prqve  tb  trie  the  heart,  .the  animus  in  a  Bishop  to  do  such  things,  and  then,  I 
believe,  he  can  make  deliberate  calculations  how  far  his  official  character 
may  shiehJ  him— he  will  learn  to  estimate  exactly  how  much  the  word  of  a 
•Bishop  will;  wi&igh  against  the  allegation  of  a  woman. 

If  all  this:be  true— -if. I, have  made  out  this  case,. there  is  at  once  a  flood 
of  light  admitted  which  illumines  our  path  back  as  far  as  1837.     There  is 
nothing  more  about  improbabilities. to  be  urged— there  is  the"  ascertained  , 
point,  and  from  this  the  mind  can  easily  go  backhand  find  nothing  at  which 
to  start  in  surprise  and  doubt. 

•.And^now,  having  established  this,  let  me  proceed  to  the  other  end"  of  the 
chain,  and  that  is  the  case  of  Mrs.  Butter.  But  before  I  enter  upon  the 
examination 'of  this  case,  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  examine  the  question  of 
evidence.  ,  I  need  not  read  the  charge  made  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Butler ; 
the  Court  are  sufficiently  familiar. with  its  details.  Have  we  proved  it.? 
If  we  have,  facts  are  certainly  made  put  which  deserve  the  censure  of  the 
Court.  'Do  you  believe  it  ?  How  will  the  mind  arrive  at  the  conclusion 
that  any  allegation  .is  true  which  rests  on  -human  testimony  ?.  How  are- 
jxm  required  to  prove  a  fact  ?  What  amount  of  testimony  is  demandecj  ? 
In  -law,  and  in  "morals,  the  solution  of  this  question  is  not  wit-hout  difficulty. 
Various  .opinions 'h-ave  .been  entertained  on  this. subject,  in  different  ages 
and  countries,  and  these  opinions  have  been  incorporated  into  the  rules  of 
evidence,  as  laid  down  in  different  legal  codes.  The  question  for  you  to 
decide  is»  updef  what  code  of  .law,  in  respect  ;to  the  rules  of  evidence,  you 
fiow  sit.  here?  What  rules  of  evidence  are  binding  on  you  as  a  Court  ? 
The  object,  and  end  of  all -these  codes  is  one,  the  ascertainment  of  truth* 
As  an  abstract  question,  your  inquiry  would  be,  which  of  these  rules  would 
be  the. surest  guide  to  the  temple^of  truth  ?  By  which  of  them  can  the 
mind  'arrive  at  a; point  where  it  may  securely  rest  its  belief;  that  is  the 
inquiry.  'A-lL  these  rules  tire'anerely  to  aid  the  inquirer  after  truth  ;  and 
if  unfettered,  by  legal  enactnjents,  you  would  -be  'free  to  adopt  that  rule 
•which  you  most  approved.  'But  the  true  question  is,  what  rules  are  bind- 
ing upon,  this  Court  t  -  Now  there  are  three  codes  spoken  of ;  the  Levitical, 
the;  Carioii  or  the  .civil  law,  (which  is  the  sarne  thing,  so  far, as  this  point, 
isr.coricerned,)  and  ,the  common  law.  Which  of  the  codes  was  in  contem- 
plation of  the  Legislature  of  the  Church,.  When  they  made  the  Canon, 
constituting  a  Court  -for^he  trial  of  a  Bishop  ?  The  statutes,  which  are 
the  Canons  of  the  Church,  provide  no  rule.  I  believe  that  is  admitted. 
There  is  np.e^pfess  Canon  on  the  subject.  In  reference  to  wnat  rules, 
then, '-'was  the -Canon  made  1.  The  Canons  prescribe  that  the  Bishop  shall 
bearrafgned  b'eibre  thre-  Court.'  .They  determine  that  he  shall  be  tried  on 
the  evidence- of  witnesses.  Your  Canon  has  provided  for  all  the  formu- 
laries of  the  trial  :  U>e  witnesses  are  sworn.  Now  arises  the  question, 
What  "rules  of  evidence  are  you,  as  a  Court,  to  regard  ?  I  maintain  that 
it  is  as  clear  as  yonder,  sun,  that  you'  are  to  have  regard  to  none  other  than 
the  common  law  rulos.  Now  for  the  proof.  You  cannot  very  well  enter 
into  the  mind  of  the -Legislature.  I  cannot  ask  the  Bishop  of  Vermont,  or 
-of  Rhode  Island,  dr  of  North  Carolina,  all  of  whom  we're  parties  in  making 


239 

the  law,  what  is  meant  by  that  law  ;  but  car*  I  gather  from  the- Canon 
t"  any  indications  as  t>  the  rule  which  was  i ft  the  mind  of  those  by 
whom  the  Canon  was  made  ?  Let  us  look  at  tkis.  I  am.  sorry,  that  my 
learned  friends  on  the  opposite  side  have  hot  found  it  convenient  to  remain, 
because  I  should  have  wished  to  present  this  argument  in  their  hearing. 
What  is  the  Canon  ? 

"  <§  1.  The  trial  of  a  Bishop  shall  be  oh  a  presentment  in  writing,  speci- 
fying the  offence  of  which  he  is  alleged  to  be  guilty,  with  reasonable-cr  r- 
tainty  as  to  time,  place,  and  circumstances.  Such  presentment  may  be 
made  for  any  crime  or  immorality,  for  heresy,  for  violation,  of  fhg  Constitu- 
tion or  Canons  of  this  Church,  or  of  the  Church  in  ttte  Diocese  To  .which  he 
belongs.  'Said  presentment  may  be  made  by  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese 
to  which  th'e  accused  Bishop  belongs,  two-thirds  of  each  order  present  COB* 
qurring,  provided  that  two-thirds  ofthe  Clergy  entitled  to  seats  in  said  Con- 
vention be  present,  and  provided  also,  that  two^thirds  of  the  Parishes  canon, 
in  union  with  said  Con-vention  be  represented,  therein  ;  and  the  vote 
thereon  shall  not  in  any  case  take  place  on  the  same. day  on  which  the  re- 
solution to  present  is  offered  ;  it  may.  also  be  made  by  any  three  Bishops  of. 
this  Church.  Whea  made  by  the  Convention,  it  shall  be  signed  by.  a  Com- 
mittee of-Prosedution,  consisting*  of  three  Clergymen  and  three  Laymen,  (d 
be  appointed  for  that  purpose;  and  when  by  three  -Bishops,,  it  shall.be 
signed  by  them  respectively,  inftheir  offici'al  characters.. 

li  §  2.  Such  presentment  shall  be  addressed'  to  '  The-  Bishops  of  .the  Pro* 
testant  Episcopal  Church  in-  the  United  States,'  an.d  .shall  be.  delivered  to- 
the  presiding  Bishop,  who  shall  send  copies  thereof  without  <May.t9  the 
several  Bishops  of  this  Church  then  being  whhin  the  territory  of  th.e.Unrted 
States.  Provided,  That  if  the  presentment  be  made.by  three- Bishop*,  nja 
copies  shall  be  sent  to  them.  And  provided  further,  That  if  the  presiding 
Bishop  be  the  subject  of  the.  presentment,  or  if  he  beoneof  the  three  .Bishops 
presenting,  such  presentment  shall  be  delivered  to  the.  Bishop  .-next  inj: 
seniority;  the  same  not  being  one  of  the  three  presenting,-  whose  .daty  it 
shall  be  in  such  case  to  perform  all-the  duties  enjoined  by  this  Gaoon  on  the 
presiding  Bishop.  Upon  .a  presentment  made  in  either  ofthe  modes  pointed 
out  in  section  1  of  this  Carion,  the 'course  of  proceeding  shall  be  as  follows: 
•  "  £  3.  The  presiding  Bishop  shall,  without  delay,  taurse  a  copy  of  the  pre- 
sentment to  be  served  on  the  accused,  and  shall  give  notice,  with  all  con- 
venient speed,  to  the  several  Bishops  then  being 'within  the  territory- of  (he 
United  .Slates,  appointing  a  time  and  place  for  their  assembling  together  ; 
and  any  number  thereof,  being  not  less  than  seven,,  other  than  t  fie  Bishops 
presenting,  then  and  there  assembled,  shall  constitute: the  court  for  ther  trial 
ofthe  accused  ;  he  shall  also-,  at  the  §ame  time,  cause  at-  least  thirty  days 
notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  trial  to  be  given,  both  to  the  accused,  and  •%& 
the  parties  presenting  him,  by  a  summoner  to  be  appointed  by  him  ;  and 
shall  also  call  on  the  accused  by  a  written  summons  to  appear  and  answer. 
The  place  of  trial  shall  always  be  within  the  Diocese  in.  which  the. accused 
B.fhop  cesidts.  If  the  accused  Bishop  appear,  before  pj-oceeding  to  trial, 
he  shall  be  called  on  by  the  Court  to  say  whether  he  is. guilty  or  not  guilty 
of  the  offence  or  offences  charged  against  .him ;  and  on,  his  neglect  .or  re- 
fusal, the  plea  of  not  guilty  shall  be  entered  for  him,  and  the  trial  shall  pro- 
ceed :  provided,  that,,  for  sufficient  cause,  the  Court  may  adjourn  from  time 
totioie:  and  provided  also,  that  the  accused  shall- at  all  times  during  the 
trial  have  liberty  to  be  present,  to  produce  his1  testimony,  and  to  make  his 
defence. 


240 

"  §  4.  When  the  Court  proceeds  to  trial,  some  officer  authorized  by  law 
to  administer  oaths,  may,  at  the  desire  of  either  party,  be  requested  to  ad- 
minister  an  oath  or  affirmation  to  the  witnesses,  that  they  will  testify  the 
truth,  the  whole  .truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth  concerning  the  matters 
charged  in  the  presentment,  and  the  testimony  of  each  witness  shall  be  re- 
duced  to  writing.  And,  in  case  the  testimony  of  any  witness  whose  attend- 
ance  on  the  trial  cannot  be  obtained  is  desired,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  either 
party,  at  any  time  after  notice  of  the  presentment  is  served  on  the  accused-, 
to  apply  to  the  Court,  if  in  session,  or  if  not,  to  any  Bishop,  who  shall  there- 
upon appoint  a  commissary  to  take  the  deposition  of  such  witness.  And  such 
party,  so  desiring  to  take  the  deposition;  shall  give  to  the  other  party,  or  some 
one  of  them,  reasonable  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  taking  the  deposition, 
accompanying  such  notice  with  the  interrogatories  to  be  propounded  to  the 
witness  ;  whereupon  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  other  party,  within  six  day3 
after  such  notice,  to  propound  cross-interrogatories ;  and  such  interrogatories 
and  cross-interrogatories,  if  any  be  propounded,  shall  be  sent  to  the  commis- 
sary, who  shall  thereupon  proceed  to  take  the  testimony  of  such  witness,  and 
transmit  it,  under  seal,  to  the  Court.  But  no  deposition  shall  be  read  at  the  trial 
unless  the  Court  have  reasonable  assurance  that  the  attendance  of  the  witness 
.  cannot  be  procured,  or  unless -both  parties  shall  consent  that  it  may  be  read. 

'"  §  5.  The  Court  having  fully  heard  the  allegations  and  testimony  of  the 
parties,  and  deliberately  considered  the  sanle,  after  the  parties  have  with- 
drawn, shall  declare  respectively,  whether,  in  their  opinion,  the  accused  be 
guilty  or  not  .guilty  of  the  charges  and  specifications  contained  in  the  pre- 
sentment, in  the  order  in  which  they  are  set  .forth  ;  and  the  declaration  of  a 
majority  of  the  Court,  being  reduced  to  writing  and  signed  by  those  who 
assent  thereto,  shall  be  considered  as  the  judgment  of  the  said  Court,  and 
shall  be  pronounced  in  the  presence  of  the  parties,  if  they  choose  to  attend. 
And  if  it  be  that  the  accused  is  guilty,  the  Court  shall,  at  the  same  time, 
pass  sentence,  and  award  the  penalty  of  admonition,,  suspension,  or  deposi- 
tion, as  to  them,  the  offence  or  offences  proved,'  may  seem  to  deserve :  pro- 
vided, that  if  the  accused  shall,  before  sentence  is  passed,  show.satisfactory 
cause  to  induce  a- belief  that -justice  has  not  been  done,  the  Court,  or  a 
majority  of  its  members,  may,  according  to  a  sound  discretion,  grant  a  re- 
hearing :  and  in  either  case,  before  passing  sentence,  the  accused  shall 
have  the  opportunity  of  being  heard,  if  he  have  aught  to  say  in  excuse  or 
palliation  ;  provided,  that  the  accused  shall  not  be  held  guilty  unless  a 
majority  of  the  Court  shall  concur,  in  regard  to  one  or  more  of  the  offences 
charged,  and  only  as  relates  to  those  charges  in  which  a  majority  SQ  concur." 

Now,  I  submit  to  the  Court,  whether  that  Presentment  in  writing  is  not 
analogous  to  an  indictment  at  common  law  ?  Flas  it  any  analogy  to 'a  bill 
filed  in  an  ecclesiastical  court,  or  in  a  court  of  civil  law  ?  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  be  very  familiar  with  ecclesiastical  law,  but  I  have  run  this  matter 
over  cursorily,  and  I  believe  that  this  proceeding  in  the  ecclesiastical 
court  is  analogous  to  a  proceeding  in  the  court  of  chancery  of  this  coun- 
try, which  is  a  court  derived  from  the  civil  law,  and  in  which  you. proceed 
by  bill,  and  the  defendant  comes  in  by  his  answer;  each  charge  being 
specifically  set  forth,  and  the  defendant  being  obliged  to  answer  fully  the 
charges,  seriatim,  or  his  answer  is  good  for  nothing.  Now,  if  I  had  been 
proceeding  against  the  defendant  in  an  ecclesiastical  court,  governed  by 
the  rules  of  the  civil  law,  I  suppose  it  would  have  beon  my  duty  to- 
have  filed  my  bill,  and  to  have  demanded  from  him,  under  oath,  if  I  chose,, 
—though  I  might  waive  that, — a  specific  answer  to  each  charge.  That 


241 

answer,  if  under  oath,  and  untrue,  would  have  subjected  him  to  an  indict- 
ment for  perjury  ;  but  he  pleads  "not  guilty,"  and  I  do  not  choose  to 
place  the  Respondent  in  the  predicament  in  which  his  Counsel  place  him ; 
I  do  not.  intend  to  make  that  an  equivalent  to  a  denial  under  oath.  I  say 
it  is  a  plea  known  to  the  common  law  courts,  and  is  equivalent  merely  to 
his  saying,  "  I  wish  to  be  put  on  trial ;  I  require,  you  to  prove  your  alle- 
gations." I  therefore  relieve  the  learned  Bishop  from  the  predicament  in 
which,  as  I  have  already  said,  he  has  been  placed  by  his  Counsel.  I  say 
he  has  not  committed  perjury,  though  his  denial  may  not  be  true.  He  is 
not  a  traitor  to  the  Church,  if  that  plea  be  not  true.  '  There/ore,  with  great 
respect,  I  submit  that  the  legislators,  when  they  made  this  Canon,  had  in 
their  eye  the  mode  of  proceeding  at  common  law.  I  understand  that  the 
late  Bishop  Hobart  wrote  an  able  article  on  this  subject,  to' show  that  our 
ecclesiastical  institutions  of  the  Episcopal  Church  were  formed  and  framed 
upon  an  analogy  with  the  civil  institutions  of  the  country ;  that  the  two 
Houses  were  meant  to  be  analogous  to  th.e  Houses  of  Congress; — of  that 
I  cannot  speak,  however.  I  merely  refer  to  this  authority,  doubtless  in 
the  possession  of  the  Bishops,  as  entitled  to  high  respect.  The  Canon 
goes  on  :  "When  the  Court  proceeds  to  trial,"  &c.  Well,  now,  that  is 
not  a  canon  or  civil  law  proceeding;  for  in  the  courts  of  chancery  the 
witnesses  are  examined  out  of  court,  before  the  chancellor  is  permitted  to 
read  the  depositions  on  which  ha  proceeds  to  hear  and  decide  the  cause. 
The  complainant  puts  in  his  bill — the  defendant  files  his  answer ;  then  the 
base  .is  put  at  issue.  The  parties  go  before  an  examiner  in  chancery,  by 
whom  the  testimony  is  taken ;  and  when  the  cause  again  comes  before  the 
chancellor,  these  depositions  are  all'read,  and  he  tyears  the  testimony  with- 
out the  benefit  of  seeing  one  of  the  witnesses.  Now,  the  great  excellence 
and  glory  of  the  common  law  is  that  which  was  so  earnestly  contended 
for 'by  the  Bishop  of -South  Carolina,  in  framing  this  very  Canon — the 
privilege  enjoyed  by  the  court  and  jury  of  seeing  the  witnesses,  and  judg- 
ing from  their  deportment,  whether  they  speak  the  truth.  That  is,  I  say, 
one  of  the  excellencies  of  the  rule  of  common  law ;  the  witness  is  seen, 
and  the  tribunal  before  which  he  appears,  can  draw  the  inference  from  his 
'manner,  as  well  as  from  the  circumstances,  whether  he  testifies  truly 
or  not. 

Then  comes  the  finding,  and  after  that  the  sentence,  and  in  all  the  enact- 
ments relative  to  them,  the  order  and  course  of  an  indictment  at  common  law 
are  pursued.  Now,  I  maintain  that  the  fact  is  proved,  as  far  as  the  subject  is 
capable  of  proof,  that  the  legislature  of  the  Church,  when  they  established 
this  Canon  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  had  in  their  minds'  eye  the  order  of 
procedure  at  common  law.  Why  ?  We  .have  no  notions  of  evidence,  any 
of  us,  only  as  we  have  learned  it  from  books,  and  as  matter  of  mere  specu- 
lation, except  those  derived  from  the  common  law.  Take  the  great  body  of 
any  legislative  assemblage,  and  they  have  no  idea  of  any  manner  of  pro- 
cedure for  the  establishment  of  truth  by  human  testimony,  other  than  that 
pursued  in  the  Courts.  The  Convention  of  the  Church  knew  no  other  pro- 
cess than  that  observed  in  courts  of  law,  and  that  is  familiarly  known  to  us 
ell  from  our  youth.  Take  any  of  the  learned  Bishops ;  suppose  a  charge 
is  brought  before  him — he  asks,  Can  you  prove  it  ?  By  whom  ?  By  John 
Doe.  Is  he  a  respectable  man  ?  Is  he  worthy  of  credit  ?  The  modes  of 
proof  inculcated  by  the  common  law  are  instinctively  recognised  and  pur- 
sued, none  other  is  thought  of.  The  testimony  of  one  respectable  witness, 
worthy  of  credit,  who  swears  to  a  fact  which  he  has  had  an  opportunity  of 


242 

knowing,  commands  belief,  unless  that  testimony  be  shaken  by  other  testi- 
mony. The  common  law  mode  of  proof  incorporates  itself  •  with  all  tmr 
proceedings  in  the  trial  of  parties  ;  and-  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  a  com- 
pany  of  Americans,  composing  a  part  of  the  great  political  society  wh-ich 
has  made  the  law  of  the  land,  establishing  the  common  law,  have  met  in  a 
Convention,  and  made  a  provision  for  the  .processes  of  a  trial,  without  refer- 
ence  to  the  course  and' order  pursued  in  a  court  of  common  law. 

But  the  .display  of  learning  by  the  Counsel  on  the  opposite  side,  renders 
it.necessary  for  me  to  go  a  little  farther  oh  this  point,  and  consider  the.  pro- 
visions of  different  code's.  I  wish  to  make  one  remark  in  this-stage  of  the 
argument,  that  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that'  you  have  adopted  the  canon 
law.  because  you  are  an  ecclesiastical  body.  I  do  not  know  that  the  canou 
law  is  binding  on  this  Court,  unless.it  be  specially  enacted.  How  do  we 
.  come  to  be  governed  by  the  common  law?  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
common  law,  as  Americans,  except  as  we  adopt  it;  but  in  all  the  civil  in- 
stitutions of  the  country  it  has  been  adopted,  and  hence  we  are  governed 
by  it. 

Now,  so  far  as  government  and  discipline  are.  concerned,  you  are  a 
separate  Church  ;  you  are  not,  in  acts  of -legislation  or  government,  connected 
with  the  Church  of  England.  It  was-  only  very  -recently  that  they  acknow- 
ledged you  to  be  a  Church  at  all.  You  have  no  legislative  connection  with 
that  body.  You  are  a  distinct  and  independent  body.  If  you,  therefore, 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America,  adopt  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  any  other  body,  you  must  do  it  by  positive  enact-' 
rnent,  just  as  the  civil  institutions  have  adopted  the  common  law  of  England.. 
You  are  an  independent  Church  in  legislation,  and  if  you  have  not  adopted 
the  canon  law  of  England  by'positive  enactment,  it  is  no  more  binding  on 
you  than  the  Levitical  law. 

Now,  first,  as  to  the  Levitical  law,  referred- to  by  the  Counsel,  as  laid 
down  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  verse  fifteenth  :  "  One 
witness  shall  not  rise  up  against  a  man  for  any  iniquity,  or  for  any  sin,  in 
any  sin  that  he  sinneth  ;  at  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses,  or  at  the  mouth  of. 
three  witnesses,  shall  the  matter  be  established.'"  This  does  not,  as  you 
will  perceive,  refer  to  any  one  crime.  It  refers  to  every  crime;  and  it- 
was  a  provision  of  the  same  law,  that  the  witnesses  should  oast  the  first, 
stone.  Nobody  here  will  pretend  that  the  Levitical  law  is  binding  upon  us. 
But  if  the  law  in  respect  to  the  number  of  witnesses  be  binding,  all  the 
other  provisions  are  also  binding  upon  us';  we  are  then  bound  to  oblige  the 
witnesses  to  cast  the  first  stone.  I  do  not,  therefore,  think  it  at  all  necessary 
to  go  into  an  elaborate  effort  to  show  that  the  Levitical  law  is  not  of  binding 
authority.  The  Court  will  see  .how  that  law  works,  in  1  Kings,  ch.  21. 
The  learned  Bishops  all  very  well  recollect  that  Naboth  had.  a  vineyard, 
and  Ahab  wanted  to  get  it.  He  could  not  obtain  it  fbf  love  or  money. 
But  this  covetous  and  wicked  man  determined  to  avail  himself  of  the  rule 
of  the.  Levitical  law,  in  order  to  obtain  possession  of  his  neighbor's  property, 
and  following  the  counsel  of  his  wife,  Jezebel,  he  adopted  a  course  of  pro- 
ceeding related  as  follows : 

"  But  Jezebel  his  wife  came  to  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Why  is  thy  spirit 
so  sad,  that  thou  eatest  no  bread  ?  And  he  said  unto  her,  Because  I  spake 
unto  Naboth  the  Jezreelite,  and  said  unto  him,  Give  me  th.y  vineyard  for 
money  :  or  else,  if  it  please  thee,  I  will  give  thee  another  vineyard  for  it: 
and  he  answered,  I  will  not  give  thee  my  vineyard.  .  And  Jezebel  his  wifa 
said  unto  him,  Dost,  thou  now  govern  the  kingdom  of  Israel?'  Arise,  and 


243 

eat  bread,  and  let  thy  heart  be  merry :  I  will  give  thee  the  vineyard  of 
Naboth  the  Jezreelite.  So  she  wrote  'letters  in  Ahab's  name,  and  sealed 
th.em  with  his  seal,  and  sent  the  letters  unta  the  elders  and  to  the  nobles  that 
were  in  his  city,  dwelling  with  Naboth.  And  she  wrote  in  the  letters,  say- 
ing, Proclaim  a  fast,  and  set  Naboth  on  high  among  the  people :  and  set 
two  men,  sons  of  Belial,  before  him,  to  bear  witness  against  him,  saying, 
Thou  didst  blaspheme  God  and  the  king.  And  then  carry  him  out,  and 
stone  him,  that  he  may  die.  And  the  men  of  his  city,  even  the  elders  and 
the  nobles  who  were  the  inhabitants  in  his  city,  did  as  Jezebel  had  sent  unto 
them,  and  as  it  was  written  in  the  letters  which  she  had  sent  unto  them. 
They  proclaimed  a  fast,  and  set  Naboth  on  high  among  the  people.  And 
there  came  in  two  men,  children  of  Belial,  and  sat  before  him:  and  the  men 
pf  Belial  witnessed  against  him,  even  against  Naboth.  in  the  presence  of  the 
people,  saying,  Naboth  did  blaspheme  God  and  the  king.  Then  they  carried 
him  forth  out  of  the  city,  and  stoned  him  with  stones,  that  he  died.  Then 
they  went  to  Jezebel,  saying,  Naboth  is  stoned,  and  is  dead."  (1  Kings, 
ch.  xxi.,  verses  5,  6,7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14.)' 

'  This  robber  and  murderer-  succeeded  by  his  two  witnesses — there  was 
no  alternative.  The  testimony  of  these  "sons  of  Belial"  would  have  slain 
the  High  Priest.  Now  I  think  that  this  law  was  an  unwise  one,  for  the 
object  of  all  law,  relative  to  evidence,  is  to  get  at  the  truth ;  I  think  we 
know  how  to  get  at  that  better  than  the  Jews  did. 

[Bishop  WHITTINGHAM — Perhaps  it  might  not  be  unwise  for  the  Counsel 
to  spare  the  discussion  of  the  wisdom  and  purity  of  this  divine  regulation, 
as  it  would  save  the  time  of  the  Court.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM — I  do  not  know  that  it  was  a  "divine  regulation;"  and 
if  it  were,  it  was  not  intended  for  all  time.  Prove  to  me  that  it  was  the 
law  of  God,  and  now  of  binding  authority,  and  the  argument  is  ended. 

[Bishop  HOPKINS — It  was  a  "  divine  regulation,"  in  the  same  sense  as 
the  law  relative  to  divorce.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM  proceeded- — My  argument  is,  that  our  common  law  rules 
are  best  adapted  for  getting  at  the  truth.  I  find,  on  this  point,  the  follow, 
ing  remark  in  Scott's  Commertkiry,  on  the  passage  in  the  26th  chapter  of 
Matthew,  relative  to  the  false  witnesses  brought  against  our  Saviour. 
"  The  professed  entertaining  of  false  witnesses  against  Christ  will  not  seem 
strange,  if  it  be  remembered  that  among  the  Jews  in  action  against  se- 
ducers of  the  people,  or  false  prophets,  it  was  lawful  to  say  any  thing  true 
or  false,  no  man  being  prevented  to  say  any  thing  in  defence  of  them." 

The  authority  given  for  this  by  Scott  is  Hammond. 

[Bishop-  CHASE — Will  the  Counsel  be  so  kind  as  to  read  that  authority 
again.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM  complied  with  the  request  of  the  learne'd  Bishop,  and  pro- 
ceeded— I  suppose,  with  great  respect  for  the  wisdom  of  that  law,  that  it 
was  not  so  well  devised  as  ours.  But  if  you  are  to  take  the  Levitical  law 
as  the  rule  on  the  question  of  evidence,  you  must,  as  I  have  already  re- 
marked, take  it  altogether.  Then  comes  the  question — has  the  Levitical 
law  been  adopted  bv,  and  made  part  of  the  fundamental  law  of,  the  Church 
of  Christ?  » 

I  will  not  stop  to  comment  on  the  passages  from  the  New  Testament, 
noticed  by  my  learned  associate:  But  in  1  Timothy,  5th  chap.  19th  verse,  I 
find  the  following  passage  : — 'f  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation 
but  before  two  .or  three  witnesses."  Now  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  very 

31 


241 

learned  in  this  matter,  and  so  I  will  not  take  upon  me  to  say  whether  it 
means  "before"  or  "by"  two  or  three  witnesses. 

The  learned  members  of  the  Court  know  how  and  where  to  look  for  tho 
authorities  on  this  passage,  and,  above  all,  to  compare  one  passage  of  Scrip, 
ture  with  others.  But,  adopting  the  construction  of  my  learned  opponents, 
I  suppose  this  was  a  direction  to  proceed  against  an  elder  exactly  as  the 
Jewish  law  proceeded  against  any  man  for  any  offence ;  all  that  St.  Paul 
meant  was,  to  adopt  the  law  of  the  country,  with  regard  to  witnesses — just 
exactly  the  position  at  which  I  desire  to  arrive.  It  was  a  received  opin- 
ion, that  to  establish  the  proof  of  any  offence,  two  witnesses  were  necessa- 
ry  ; — and  St.'  Paul  meant  to  adopt  it,  and  introduce  it  into  the  practice  of 
the  Christian  Church  of  that  day  and  country — and,  accordingly,  he  di- 
rects Timothy  not  to  receive  an  accusation  against  an  elder,  except  by 
two  or  three  witnesses.  Learned  commentators  may  put  a  different  con- 
struction upon  the  passage ;  but  I  contend,  with  great  respect,  that  it  ia 
obvious  that  St.  Paul  meant  simply  to  introduce  the  known  and  established 
law  of  the  Jews,  in  regard  to  two  witnesses. 

Thus  much  for  the  Levitical  law,  a3  far  as  it  was  introduced  into  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

Now  we  come  to  the  Canon  law.  Here  I  beg  to  refer  to  u  Burn's  EC- 
clesiastical  Law,"  vol.  1,  p.  xxi.,  of  the  Introduction.  This  authority  says : 
"  The  Canon  law  sprung  up  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  Roman  empire,  and 
from  the  power  of  the  Roman  pontiffs.  When  the  seat  of  the  empire  was 
removed  to  Constantinople,  many  of  the  European  Princes  and  States  fell 
off  from  the  dominions  of  the  emperors,  and  Italy  among  the  rest.  And 
the  Bishops  of  Rome,  having  been  generally  had  in  esteem  as  presiding  in 
the  capital  city  of  the  empire,  began  to  set  up  for  themselves,  and  by  de- 
grees acquired  a  temporal  dominion  in  Italy,  and  a  spiritual  dominion 
throughout  Italy,  and  almost  all  the  rest  of  Europe.  And  thereupon  the 
several  Princes  and  States,  did  willingly  receive  into  the  body  of  their  own 
laws  the  Canons  of  councils,  the  writings  of  the  holy  fathers,  and  the  de- 
crees and  constitution  of  the  Popes." 

According  to  the  Canon  law,  two  witnesses  were  required  to  prove  an 
offence.  I  need  hardly  inform  the  Court,  that  all  the  duties  now  per- 
formed by  our  surrogates  in  this  country — such  as  proving  wills,  and  dis- 
tributing estates,  after  the  decease  of  a  testator  or  intestate — are  performed 
in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  Great  Britain.  Therefore,  that  department 
grants  letters  of  administration,  and  does  all  things  which  are,  I  dare  say, 
familiar  to  the  members  of  this  Court,  as  occurring  in  the  Bishops'  courts 
in  England. 

.  I  suppose  this  to  be  the  rule,  that  if  any  question  arises  in  the  ecclesi- 
astical court,  of  which  the  courts  of  common  law  have  jurisdiction,  the  ec- 
clesiastical court  will  be  compelled,  by  a  writ  of  prohibition,  to  proceed 
according  to  the  course  of  the  common  law. 

[Bishop  HOPKINS — Yes.  in  cases  of  that  kind.] 

Mr.  KETCIICTM.  —  For  instance,  a  Bishop  commits  an  assault  and 
battery  ;  he  may  be  tried  and  condemned  in  the  civil  court  on  the  evidence 
of  one  witness  ;  I  suppose  that  in  proceedings  against  him  for  the  like  of- 
fence in  the  ecclesiastical  court,  the  same  amount  of  evidence  would  con- 
vict him.  If  not,  you  can  see  in  what  a  dilemma  the  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority would  be  placed,  as  was  well  explained  by  my  learned  associate.  A 
Bishop  could  be  indicted  and  put  in  prison  for  an  assault ;  and  yet,  the 


245 

ecclesiastical  court  could  not  try  him,  because  they  had  not  .two  witnesses 
to  testify  to  the  commission  of  the  offence.  He  might  even  be  sent  to  the 
gallows,  and  yet  the  ecclesiastical  court  be  entirely  debarred  from  acting 
in  his  case.  Then,  I  suppose,  that  a  writ  could  issue  to  the  ecclesiastical 
court,  directing  that  as  to  this  offence  they  should  be  g'overned  by  the  rules 
,  of  common  law.  If  not,  what  confusion  would  arise !  The  idea  of  a 
Bishop  in  prison  for  a  crime,  whom  his  Church  could  not  touch,  would  be 
an  absurdity  not  to  be  tolerated  for  a  moment. 

But  if  you  come  to  an  offence  purely  spiritual,  heresy,  for  instance,  in 
which  the  common  law  has  no  jurisdiction,  then,  I  suppose,  would  operate 
in  full  force  the  Canon  law  prescribing  two  or  more  witnesses. 

I  have  gone  through  with  this  argument  somewhat  in  detail — I  do  not 
know  that  it  was  necessary  to  do  so ;  but  doubt  might  possibly  exist,  in  the 
mind  of  some  member  of  the  Court,  and  it  was  therefore  my  duty  to  meet 
that  supposed  difficulty,  and  endeavor  to  remove  it. 

But  the  gentleman  on  the  opposite  side  has  advanced  an  argument  which 
I  will  show  is  perfect  felo  dt  se  as  to  his  own  proposition.  He  thinks  proper 
to  say,  that  in  this  case  there  is  but  one  charge,  with  numerous  specifica- 
tions. That  he  assumes.  But  I  have  supposed,  and  do  still  suppose,  that 
each  one  of  these  specifications  presents  a  distinct  charge  ;  and  that,  with- 
out any  recital  or  preamble  at  all,  this  would  have  been  a  good  present, 
ment  of  each  offence.  But  I  will  show  you  that  he  has  killed  his  own 
argument. 

In  this  country,  there  are  two  witnesses  required  to  prove  a  case  of  trea- 
son. But  the  courts  have  established,  that  every  overt  act  of  treason  needs 
not  to  be  proved  by  two  witnesses — that  if  you  bring  one  witness  to  one  act, 
and  another  to  another  act,  so  that  two  witnesses  testify,  you  have  then 
made  out  the  charge  satisfactorily.  (1  Burr's  Trials,  196.  Greenleaf, 
292.)  Greenleaf  says,  "  We  have  already  seen  that  a  voluntary  confession 
out  of  court,  if  proved  by  two  witnesses,  is  sufficient  to  warrant  a  convic- 
tion ;  and  the  crime  is  well  proved  if  there  be  one  witness  to  one  overt  act, 
and  another  witness  to  another  act,  of  the  same  species  of  treason."  The 
rule  would,  undoubtedly,  be  the  same  in  the  ecclesiastical  court.  For  in- 
stance, I  charge  the  Bishop  with  intemperance,  and  prove  by  a  witness  that 
to-day  he  was  intoxicated — yesterday,  by  another  witness — and  so  go  on, 
proving  several  overt  acts  of  intemperance,  each  by  a  single  witness  :  have 
I  not,  in  that  case,  succeeded  in  proving  the  charge  by  the  testimony  of 
"  two  or  three  -witnesses  ?"  (1  Haggard,  182,  463.)  Sir  William  Scott 
says,  "  By  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  law,  I  conceive  one  witness  to  the  fact, 
and  one  to  the  circumstances,  was  sufficient,  and  would  be  so  still  in  a  pro- 
ceeding in  that  form,  according  to  ths  ordinary  rule  of  ecclesiastical  law, 
which  satisfies  its  own  demand  of  two  witnesses,  by  receiving  one  to  the 
fact,  and  one  to  the  circumstances."  I  contend  that  we  have  answered  the 
requirements  of  the  gentleman.  He  says  that  we  have  but  one  charge 
with  several  specifications.  Well,  now  if  we  prove  one  specification  by 
one  witness,  and  another  by  another  witness,  it  will  be  seen,  that  according 
to  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  himself,  if  these  are  to  be  regarded  as 
overt  acts,  that  we  have  made  out  the  general  proposition. 

I  now  come  to  examine  our  own  law.  "  This  open  examination  of  wit- 
nesses viva  voce,  in  the  presence  of  all  mankind,  is  much  more  conducive 
to  the  clearing  up  of  truth,  than  the  private  and  secret  examination  taken 
down  in  writing  before  an  officer,  or  his  clerk,  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts, 


246 

and  all  others  that  have  borrowed  their  practice  from  the  civil  law — where 
a  witness  may  frequently  depose  that  in  private,  which  he  will  be  ashamed 
to  testify  in  a  public  and  solemn  tribunal.  There  an  artful  or  careless 
scribe  may  make  a  witness  speak  what  he  never  meant,  by  dressing  up  his 
depositions  in  his  own  forms  and  language  ;  but  be  is  here  at  liberty  to 
correct  and  explain  his  meaning  if  misunderstood,  which  he  can  never  do 
after  a  written  deposition  is  once  taken.  Besides,  the  occasional  questions 
of  the  judge,  the  jury,  and  the  counsel,  propounded  to  the  witnesses  on  a 
sudden,  will  sift  out  the  truth  much  better  than  a  formal  set  of  interroga- 
tories, previously  penned  and  settled  ;  and  the  confronting  of  adverse  wit- 
nesses is  also  another  opportunity  of  obtaining  a  clear  discovery,  which  can 
never  be  had  upon  any  other  method  of  trial.  Nor  is  the  presence  of  the 
judge  .during  the  examination  a  matter  of  small  importance;  for,  besides 
the  respect  and  awe  with  which  his  presence  will  naturally  inspire  the 
witness,  he  is  able,  by  use  and  experience,  to  keep  the  evidence  from 
wandering  from  the  point  in  issue.  In  short,  by  this  method  of  examina- 
tion, and  this  only,  the  persons  who  are  to  decide  upon  the  evidence  have 
an  opportunity  of  observing  the  quality,  age,  education,  understanding,  be- 
havior, and  inclinations  of  the  witness — in  which  points  all  persons  must 
appear  alike  when  their  depositions  are  reduced  to  writing,  and  read  to 
the  judge  in  the  absence  of  those  who  made  them  ;  and  yet  as  much  may 
be  frequently  collected  from  the  manner  in  which  the  evidence  is  deliv- 
ered, as  from  the  matter  of  it.  These  are  a  few  of  the  advantages  at- 
tending this,  the  English  way  of  giving  testimony,  ore  tenus, — which  was 
also,  indeed,  familiar  among  the  ancient  Romans,  as  may  be  collected  from 
Quintilian,  who  lays  down  very  good  instructions  for  examining  and 
cross-examining  witnesses  viva  voce.  And  this,  or  somewhat  like  it,  was 
continued  as  low  as  the  time  of  Hadrian  ;  but  the  civil  law,  as  it  is  now 
modelled,  rejects  all  public  examination  of  witnesses." — Blackstone's  Com. 
vol.  3,  p.  372-3. 

Ihave  thus  the  authority  of  that  great  man  ;  and  it  becomes  my  Saxon 
blood,  notwithstanding  the  authority  of  the  Levitical  law,  to  declare  that  the 
common  law  mode  of  investigation  is  the  best  mode  of  eliciting  the  truth, 
and  that  is,  after  all,  the  great  object  of  all  judicial-inquiry. — (1  Starkie, 
470.)  This  author  lays  it  down,  "  The  maxim  of  law  is,  ponderantur  lestes, 
non  numerantur.  No  definite  degrees  of  probability  can  in  practice  be  as- 
signed to  the  testimony  of  witnesses  ;  their  credibility  usually  depends  upon 
the  special  circumstances  attending  each  particular  case  ;  upon  the  connec- 
tion with  the  parties,  and  the  subject  matter  of  litigation  ;  their  principles, 
characters,  the.  manner  of  delivering  their  evidence,  and  many  other  cir- 
cumstances, by  a  careful  consideration  of  which,  the  value  of  their  testi- 
mony is  so  well  ascertained,  as  to  leave  no  room  for  mere  numerical  com- 
parison." 

[Bishop  GADSDEN. — Will  the  Counsel  oblige  me  by  informing  us  whether 
it  is  lestes  or  lestis  ? 

Mr.  KETCHTJM. — Testes.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM  proceeded. — Now  I  go  on  with  the  examination  of  the  evi- 
dence. What  is  it  ?  Mrs.  Butler  testifies,  that  when  riding  with  the  Bishop 
he  took  certain  liberties  with  her ;  putting  his  arm  around  her,  and  drawing 
her  towards  him  ;  that  her  husband  observed  this,  and  was  displeased  ;  but 
that  she  had  noticed  that  the  Bishop  was  somewhat  excited  by  wine,  and 
was  not  willing  to  believe  that  he  meant  any  thing  wrong.  The  liberty 


247 

was  repeated,  and  the  lady  took  his  hand  and  laid  it  upon  his  knee, .saying, 
as  you  have  heard,  "  This  is  a  sacred  hand."  Up  to  this  time,  two  wit- 
nesses  were  cognizant  of  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop.  That  afterwards,  a 
space  of  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes,  Mrs.  Butler  testifies,  he  proceeded 
to  the  other  indignities  which  she  describes.  These  indignities  the  second 
witness  did  not  see  ;  but  she  immediately  sprang  over  to  her  husband — was 
in  great  alarm,  and  so  continued  throughout  the  night.  Therefore,  we  have 
not  the  evidence  of  two  witnesses  to  the  whole  of  this 'transaction  ;  but  as 
near  as  we  possibly  can,  we  have  to  the  whole.  Here  two  witnesses 
have  sworn  to  these  facts.  Are  they  to  be  believed  ?  Is  Mrs.  Butler  to  be 
believed  ?  Why  not  ?  Was  there*  any  thing  in  her  manner — which  you  all 
had  the  opportunity  of  observing — to  induce  you  to  think  that  she  was  not 
telling  the  truth  ?  She  has  been,- so  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  religiously 
brought  up.  She  is  a  daughter  of  a  presbyter  of  the  Church.  '  It  is  to  be 
presumed  that  she  was  fu/nished  with  all  the  instruction  which  the  Church 
wisely  supplies  her  children.  She  has  been  confirmed  ;  she  has  taken  upon 
herself  the  obligations  of  a  Christian.  On  arriving  at  a  "proper  age  she 
was  married.  She  has  become  a  communicant  of  the  Church.  Is  there 
the  slightest  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  her  testimony,  or  to  induce  the  be- 
lief that  she  swears  falsely  ?  Certainly  not.  No  man  here  present,  ever 
saw  a  witness  sustain  an  examination  better  than  she  did — with  more  clear- 
ness — with  more  perfect  intelligence.  I  never  saw,  and  I  venture  to  say 
the  Counsel  here  who  were  my  seniors  in  years,  never  saw  a  witness  whose 
manner  was  more  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  her  testimony.  She  testified 
clearly.-  She  stood  here  with  a  perfectly  irreproachable  character.  If  it 
were  not,  it  could,  and  would  have  been'shown. 

Well,  now,  the  next  test  is,  does  she  speak  of  that  which  she  knows  ?  If 
these  facts  are  true,  they  must  have  made  upon^her  mind  an  indelible  im- 
pression— she  must  remember  them  as  freshly  and  as  clearly»  as  the  day 
alter  they  happened.  She  positively  swears  to  them  :  her  husband  swears 
to  what  he  saw.  Both  swear  exactly  as  to  what  each  saw.  From 
that  time  they  may  have  forgotten  some  things.  MY.  Butler  may 
not  recollect  a  conversation,  so  long  ago,  with  perfect  accuracy,  but 
he  would  be  able  to  recollect  what  he  himself  saw,  and  what  at- 
tracted his  attention  at  the  time.  He  remembers  the  motions  of  the  Bishop  ; 
he  recollects  perfectly  all  that  he  saw.  She  recollects  the  other  facts  which 
did  not  come  under  his  notice.  Both  thus  testify  to  the  facts  of  this  case. 
I  am  not  going  to  examine  the  deposition  of  Mr.  Butler ;  I  leave  that  to  the 
Court  hereafter,  and  I  venture  to  say  that  the  Court,  when  the  evidence  is 
read  over  to  them,  will  say  that  there  is  a  manifest  desire  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Butler  to  testify  to  the  exact  truth.  Who  is  Mr.  Butler  ?  If  he  be 
thrown  aside,  it  must  be  because  he  is  regarded  as  a  perjured  witness.  The 
Counsel  do  not  relieve  us  from  that  alternative.  If  you  believe  these  wit- 
nesses, then  you  must  believe  the  Bishop  to  be  guilty  ;  if  not,  they  are  to 
be  regarded  as  perjured  witnesses.  Who.,  then,  is  Mr.  Butler  ?  His  father 
was,  I  believe,  the  first  Episcopal  presbyter  I  ever  heard ;  old  Dr.  Butler 
wa's  a  man  of  the  highest  respectability.  No  man  of  any  denomination  of 
Christians,  or  of  any  business  in  life,  surpassed  him  in  purity  and  elevation 
of  character.  This  is  his  son,  brought  up  in  infancy  in  the  way  in  which 
he  should  go,  and  he  chose  his  father's  path.  Now,  I  want  to  know  if  that 
same  Mr.  Butler  is  not  under  as  high  obligations  as  this  Bishop  to  tell  the 
truth  ?  When  he  was  confirmed  he  entered  into  as  solemn  an  obligation 


248 

as  that  of  the  Bishop.  When  the  holy  orders  of  .the  priesthood  were  con- 
ferred upon  him,  ho  .assumed  an  equally  solemn  obligation.  I  desire  to 
know  on  what  considerations  the  Bishop  should  be  placed  on  a  higher  eleva- 
tion than  Mr.  Butler,  as  to  the  possession  of  all  that  constitutes  grounds  for 
belief?  As  a  witness,  on  the  stand  here,  is  he  not  to  be  believed  as  well  as 
the  Bishop  ?  He  may  not  be  equally  learned  and  wise,  but  in  testifying  to 
a  fact,  I  want  to  know  why  he  is  not  entitled  to  as  much  credence  as  any 
Bjshop  who  hears  me  ?  Welf,  now,  both  witnesses  testify  to  these  facts. 
Shortly  after — not  very  long  after — the  act  was  committed,  Mr,  Butler 
states  the  same  thing  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lucas.  We  could  nofbring  Mr.  Lu- 
cas here,  but  they  could  have  done  so.  , 

[Bishop  GADSDEN — He  is  dead.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM  proceeded. — He  also  told  the  Rev.  Mr.  Irving.  Both 
these  witnesses  have  pursued  a  course  of  conduct  entirely  consistent 
with  the  fact  that  this  indignity  was  committed  on  Mrs.  Butler,  and  I  again 
ask  why  they  should  not  be  believed  ?  The  argument  that  the  Bishop  is 
incapable  of  doing  such  an  act,  has  lost  all  its  force,  if  we  believe  the  tes- 
timony in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare ;  because,  if  you  prove  that  in  1842  he 
did  it,  you  have  a  right  to  presume  that  it  was  quite  possible  for  him  to  do 
it  in  1837.  Upon  this  subject,  therefore,  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary 
to  detain  the  Court  long.  I  shall  refer  them  only  to  one  remark  offered  on 
the  other  side,  and  I  am  very  sorry,  on  -the  Respondent's  account,  to  hear 
such  an  argument — that  because  the  Bishop  was  intoxicated,  he  is  not  to  be 
charged  with  guilty  intent ;  and  they  have  cited  8th  Russel,  wherein  it  is  laid 
down  that  a  man  might  be  acquitted  of  a  charge  of  murder  on  the  ground 
of  intoxication.  That  is  a  case  in  which  premeditation  is  necessary  to  con- 
stitute the  crime.  But  if  an  assault  and  battery,  or  any  other  crime  not 
requiring  premeditation,  be  committed  by  a  party  in  a  state  of  intoxication, 
the  guilty  intent  is  inferred  from  the  act.  If  a  man  steals  the  property  of 
another,  it  is  as  well  a  felony  if  he  be  intoxicated  as  if  he  were  sober.  Our 
charge  is  not  that  the  Bishop  was  guilty  of  a  premeditated  act  towards  th« 
lady ;  but  it  is  that  he  was  so  impure  that  he  was  overcome  by  the  mere 
contact  of  his  position  beside  the  lady.  It  is  not  at  all  essential  to  our  case 
to  show  that  the  act  was  premeditated..  .It  is  enough  for  us  to  prove  that  he 
did  it.  But  then,  even  in  the  case  before  us,  we  have  not  charged  that  de- 
gree of  drunkenness,  which  would  exempt  him  from  punishment  in  case  of 
murder.  It  is  not  a  total  loss  of  his  faculties,  but  an  exhilaration.  He  was 
under  the  influence  of  wine  or  spirituous  liquors ;  he  was  not  drunk,  but  he 
was  excited — net  sufficiently  excited  to  have  been  bereft  of  reason,  but  suf- 
ficiently excited  to  do,  perhaps,  those  things  which  otherwise  he  could  have 
avoided.  Therefore,  the  argument  in  favor  of  drunkenness  cannot  be  ap- 
plied to  his  benefit.  But  Mrs.  Butler  thinks  it  was  improper  desire  and 
drunkenness ;  in  her  cross-examination  she  is  willing  to  suppose  that  the 
excitement,  produced  by  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors,  helped  this  on.  I  am 
willing  to  suppose,  and  I  do  suppose,  that  the  origin  of  all  this  course  of 
conduct  was  excitement  produced  by  intoxicating  liquors.  It  began  in 
such  excitement,  and  it  has  been  continued  without  such  excitement.  Ho 
broke  over  the  bounds  of  duty,  in  the  first  instance,  in  allowing  himself  to 
be  overcome  of  such  excitement,  and  having  taken  the  first  step,  he  has 
gone  again  and  again  when  he  had  not  the  apology  of  excitement,  if  that 
were,  indeed,  an  apology.  I  suppose  that  to  have  been  the  cause  of  the 
difficulty  originally — I  have  not  any  doubt  of  it  in  my  own  mind  ;  and  on 


249 

this  point  I  was  most  forcibly  struck  by  one  of  the  afternoon  lessons  of  our 
Church,  read  since  this  trial  was  commenced  :  "  But  they  also  have  erred 
through  wine,  and  through  strong  drink  are  out  of  the  way  ;  the  priest 
and  the  prophet  have  erred  through  strong  drink,  they  are  swallowed  up  of 
wine,  they  are  out  of  the  way,  through  strong  drink  ;  they  err  in  vision, 
they  stumble  in  judgment."  I  believe  he  first  erred  "  through  wine  and 
strong  drink,"  and  so  he  has  gone  on  from  that  time  to  this. 

But  I  hasten  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bolles,  on  the  next  charge  in  the 
Presentment.  Now  J  will  consider  a  suggestion-  made  by  the  learned 
Bishop  of  South  Carolina.  In  that  case  we  have  not  proved  the  charge  as 
alleged,  and  I  noticed  the  question  put  by  that  Bishop  at  the  time.  I  un- 
derstand the  Canon  to  be  this,  that  you  shall  state  the  pffence,  with  time, 
place,  and  circumstance.  The  offence,  in  this  case,  is  the  impurity 
charged.  If  I  say,  in  allegation  of  this,  that  at  such  a  time  he  put  his 
right  arm  around  a  lady,  and  that  in  that  act  he  was  guilty  of  impurity, 
and  it  turns  out  that  it  was  his  left  arm,  still  I  believe  it  will  be  admitted 
that  the  charge  is  sufficiently  made  out.  The  requirement  is  to  make  out 
at  what  lime  and  place  the  alleged  impurity  was  manifested  ;  and  to 
make  them  out  with  such  measure  of  distinctness  and  accuracy,  as  may 
enable  the  defendant  to  show  what  he  was  doing  then  and  there.  But  if 
he  did  an  improper  act,  he  cannot  escape  by  saying  that  the  improper  act 
is  not  precisely  alleged  as  it  has  been  proved. 

Here  is  a  charge  of  impurity.  I  give  the  time,  place,  and  circumstance 
as  far  as  I  can.  The  time  and  place  I  give  accurately,  but  the  precise 
circumstances  of  the  offence  I  cannot  give  ^exactly.  But  that  does  not 
furnish  sufficient  ground  of  escape  for  the  Bishop. 

Now  I  place  the  Bishop  in  the  stage.  We  have  said  that  he  sat  on  the 
back  seat ;  but  he  did  not.  That's  the  ground  of  escape  set  up  by  the 
Counsel,  because  we  did  not  allege  that  the  act  was  committed  on  the 
second  seat.  My  position,  however,  is.  that  you  must  charge  the  offence 
generally  :  if  intoxication,  intoxication  ;  if  impurity,  impurity  ;  and  you 
must  state  the  circumstances  and  the  manner  as  well  as  you  can,  bu£  you 
are  not  held  to  the  strictest  proof  as  to  the  precise  manner.  If  the  Bishop 
could  deny  the  place  and  circumstances,  as  well  as  taking  hold  of  the 
lady's  hand,  that  were  something.  But  I  take  it  that  we  are  not  bound  to 
prove  the  charge  precisely  as  alleged.  If  the  substance  of  the  offence 
be  charged,  if  time  and  place  be  given,  and  the  circumstances  also,  asj,  ac- 
curately as  practicable,  though  not  precisely  as  in  the  proof,  I  think  the 
Respondent  is  put  on  his  defence  ;  and  if  the  substance  be  proved,  he  is  to 
be  found  guilty.  Well,  then,  is  tlie  substance  of  this  charge  proved?  I 
do  not  dwell  on  it,  but  I  make  one  suggestion.  Mr.  Bol/es  sat  in  this 
stage,  and  saw  the  Bishop  do  a  thing  to  a  lady  which  he  thought  very 
foolish.  He  felt  alarmed  for  the  Church.  He  thought  it  was  an  act 
capable  of  misconstruction.  He  thought  it  might  be  proclaimed  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  Church.  What  are  the  mitigating  circumstances  in  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Bolles  ?  Why  that  there  could  not  be  any  immoral  intent, 
because  the  Bishop  did  it  ?  Now  I  think  if  I  make  it  clear  that  the  Bishop 
was  capable  of  committing  that  act,  and  was  likely  to  commit  it,  then  do  I 
not  produce  a  state  of  facts  which  ought  to  outweigh  Mr.  Bolles'  deduc- 
tion ?  If  I  recollect  right,  Mr.  Bolles  said,  that  had  the  act  been  commit- 
ted by  an  impure  man,  he  would  have  regarded  it  as  done  with  impure 

32 


250 

intent.  But  if  I  can  lead  this  Court  to  believe,  that  from  other  acts 
committed  by  the  Bishop,  he  was  quite  capable  and  quite  likely  to 
take  hold  of  that  lady's  hand  from  impure  motives,  then  I  destroy 
the  presumption  in  favor  of  the  Bishop,  which.  Mr.  Bolles  deduces  ;  and 
it  is  for  the  Court  to  judge  whether  or  not  he  acted  from  impure  mo- 
tives. We  do  not  try  acts  here,  so  much  as -.intentions.  'I  thank  the 
learned  Doctor  of  Divinity  of  Trinity  Church  for  giving  me  that  expres- 
sion. It  is  "adultery  of  the  heart"  that  we  are  to  try.  What  says  the 
/Scripture  ? — "  He  that  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  commit- 
ted adultery  with  her  in  his  heart."  And  if  we  cannot  condemn  for  look- 
ing merely- — when  the  look'  proceeds  to  acts,  however  slight,  which  demon- 
strate intention,  then  I  suppose  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  commission 
of  adultery  in  the  heart;  and  if  that  be  shown  in  this  case,  I  suppose  the 
Court  will  hardly  be  prevented  from  finding  the  Bishop  guilty,  because  we 
have  not  made  out  the  offence  precisely  according  to  the  allegation 
charged.  However,  I  now  leave  this  case  with  the  Court. 

I  next  proceed  to  the  case  of  the  Misses  Rudderow.     Did  you  see  any 
thing  in  the  manner  of  Miss  Helen  Rudderow  calculated  to  shake  your  con- 
fidence  in  her  veracity  ?     She  testifies  clearly  as  to  the  facts.     She  com- 
municated them  to  her  sister  and  to  others,  at  and  near  the  time  they  oc- 
curred, for  Mr.  Dowdney  recollected,  that  when  he  came  to  the  parish,  he 
understood  that  she  alleged  some  improper  conduct  against  the   Bishop. 
She  stated  things  then  as  she  states  them  now.     What  is  the  answer  of  the 
Counsel  ?     Why,  that  it  was  improbable  the  Bishop  could   do  it — that  he 
could  not  do  it  without  being  observed  by  Mr.  Richmond.    One  of  the  learned 
Counsel  said  it  was  not  expedient  for  any  one  of  the  Bishops  to  try  the  ex- 
periment of  placing  parties  in  the  position  these  were  placed.     But  I  advise 
.them  to  try   it.     Let  them  see  how  far  the  hand  can  be  employed  in  the 
way  alleged  without  attracting  the  attention  of  a  person  .situated  as   Mr. 
Richmond  was,  'in  front.     If  I  were  a  judge  in  this  case,  I  would  try  that 
experiment.     I  say  that  it  was  perfectly  practicable  to  have  it  appear  as  if 
the  hand  were  carelessly  reposing  on  the  back  of  the  carriage,  and  then  to. 
thrust  it  into  the  bosom  of  the  lady  without  attracting  the  notice  of  the  person 
in  front.     I  believe  that  all  that  could  be  done  very  readily  ;  and  1  believe 
that  persons  experienced  in  the  matters  could  tell  how  far  it-could  be  done. 
But  these  learned  Bishops  are  not  to  judge  from  their  own  experience  how 
this  could  be  done.     Why,  I  suppose  if  I  were  to  ask  one  of  the  learned 
Bishops  whether  he  thought  it  possible  that,  his  'pocket-book  codld  be  taken 
from  his  pocket  without  his  knowing  it,  he  would  answer  that  he  thought  it 
impossible.     A  gentleman  corning  from  the  interior,  and  not  aware  of  the 
arts  practised  in  the  city,  would  be  willing  to  say,  perhaps,  that  testimony 
to  that  effect  was  not  to  be  believed— that  the  thing  was  impossible.     But 
those  who  live  in  large  cities,  and  are  aware  of  the  dexterity  of  thieves  and 
pickpockets,  would.say  that  all  that,  was  quite  possible.     If  you  had  told  a 
man  twenty  years  ago  that  conveyances  could  be  made  which  would  carry 
you  sixty  miles  in  two  hours,  he  would  of  course  have  exclaimed — Oh,  that 
.is  impossible!     But  now  everybody  knows  the  possibility  of  this.     The 
Bishops  understand  this  argument  perfectly,  for  that  is  the  argument  against 
the  miracles  of  the  Christian  religion  itself,  carried  out  in  all  its  details  by 
the  great  infidel  philosopher,  Hume.     Any  one  of  the  Bishops  can  estimate 
the  force  of  that  argument.     It  is  the  impossibility  of  the  thing  that  is  urged 


261 

i 

-  . 

by  the  opponents  of  the  truths  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  the  living 
witness  is  not  believed  because  the  testimony  contravenes  the  experience  of 
the  laws  of  nature.  The  infidel  will  not  believe  that  the  dead  were  made 
to  live  again,  because  the  greater  probability  is  that  the  laws  of  nature 
could  not  be  violated.  That  argument  can  be  met,  and  it  has  been  met. 
But  it  is  precisely  the  argument  of  the  learned  Counsel  in  this  case.  Here, 
to  be  sure,  is  no  case  of  miracle  ;  but  the  Counsel,  rep  resent  the  act  as  unnatu- 
ral— as  impossible — as  revolting  to  human  nature.  Why,  I  think  what  you 
may  regard  impossible  and  revolting,  would  be  testified  to  as  quite  possible 
by  yonder  man  who  stands  at  the  corner  watching  to  betray  female  inno- 
cence, day  after  day  ;  and  by  thousands  in  this  city  who  are  in  the  very  em- 
braces of  death.  Give  me  the  man  with  strong  lustful  desires,  unrestrained  by 
moral  principle,  and  I  tell  you  that  nothing  is  impossible  to  him.  He  will 
accomplish  his  object,  and  that  in  ways  utterly  unsuspected  and  unknown 
by  the  pure  and  virtuous  man. 

The  difficulty  in  the  case,  and  there  is  none  other,  is,  that  the  Bishop 
would  do  the  thing  at  all.  Now  I  may  speak  of  a  case  which  was  notori- 
ous. A  few  years  ago,  in  a  neighboring  city,  there  dwelt  a  minister  of  the 
gospel,  not  an  Episcopalian,  learned,  accomplished — moving  in  the  best  so- 
ciety ;  and  yet  that  man  would  start  with  his  family  for  the  house  of  God, 
and  return  on  some  pretence  or  another  to  his  dwelling,  and  there  hold  in 
foul  embrace  a  negro  wench,  his  cook.  Why,  every  man  said  that  was 
impossible,  and  it  would  not  have  been  believed  if  sworn  to  by  the  negro 
wench  ;  but  in  the  honesty  of  his  heart,  when  he  was  found  guilty  of  other 
offences,  he  confessed  the  whole.  He  laid  the  whole  open — he  confessed 
his  deeds,  black  as  they  were — submitted  to  the  discipline  of  his  church  ; 
and,  after  some  twenty  years  of  suspense,  accompanied  by  penitence,  he 
has,  I  believe,  been  restored. 

Now,  we  must  not  talk  of  things  being  impossible.  The  impossibility 
exists  only  in  your  own  want  of  experience.  It  is  because  you  do  not  know. 
Take  the  illiterate  man,  and  tell  him  of  the  result  of  chemical  combinations, 
and  he  says  it  is  impossible.  And  because  you  do  not  happen  to  be  versed 
in  the  ways  of  gross  vice,  things  may  seem  impossible  to  you  that  are  very 
possible  to  those  who  have  passed  therein — who  are  themselves  familiar 
with  the  devices  and  practices  of  iniquity. 

[Bishop  EASTBTRX — The  individual  just  referred  to  by  you  was  deranged, 
and  has  not  been  restored.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM  proceeded — Well,  perhaps  all  vice  is  derangement;  we 
will  not  stop  to  discuss  that  now.  This  argument  of  impossibility,  when 
presented  in  opposition, to  the  positive  evidence  of  an  unimpeached  witness, 
ought  not  certainly  to  have  much  weight. 

Now  I  pass  on  to  the  next  case — that  of  Miss  Jane  Rudderow.  You 
heard  the  testimony  of  that  witness,  and  marked  its  perfect  clearness ;  and 
you  will  see,  by  examining  the  elementary  treatises  on  this  subject,'that  it  is 
one  of  the  characteristics  of  truth.  She  entered  the  drawing-room — the 
Bishop  took  her  by  the  hand,  and  led  her  to  the  sofa,  the  door  being  wide 
open.  Now,  if  she  wanted  to  tell  a  falsehood  she  might  have  shut  the  door. 
But  it  was  open,  and  so  she  at  once  stated  it  was.  And  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dowd- 
ney  has  testified  that  that  door  opened  upon  the  sofa.  I  believe  that  it  did 
not — that  it  opened  the  other  way. 

[Bishop  WHITTLNGHAM. — Mr.  Dowdney  was  not  certain  on  that  point.] 


252 

Mr.  KETCHUM. — No — I  believe  he  was  not  certain.  But  the  lady  told 
that  fact  without  the  slightest  hesitation ;  a  fact  which  she  would,  in  all 
probability,  have  concealed  or  falsified,  had  she  been  desirous  of  giving 
an  untrue  story.  What  occurred  there  in  the  room  ?  It  is  all  very  easily 
explained  if  you  will  admit  one  thing — that  is,  that  the  Bishop  impurely 
desired  her — that  he  was  hot  in  the  pursuit ;  and  that  he  was  under  such 
an  impulse  must  have  been  the  case,  because  he  rushed  behind  the  blind 
after  her ;  and  we  have  liad  Mr.  Dowdney  here  with  a  string,  and  Mr. 
Rudderow  with  the  blind,  and  have  seen  that  these  persons  could  stand 
under  the  blind.  Well,  all  I  can  say  is,  that  this  is  clearly  testified  to  by 
an  unimpeached  witness ;  and  nothing  on  earth  can  be  urged  against  it  but 
the  argument  of  improbability.  Weigh  that  argument  against  the  positive 
oath  of  this  witness,  and  you  will  .determine  how  the  scale  preponderates. 

But  we  have  had  attempts  made  to  contradict  this  witness.  By  whom  ? 
By  this  Rev.  Mr.  Dowdney,  for  whom  I  desire  to  entertain  the  highest  re- 
spect. •  I  wish  I  could.  But  he  comes  up  and  testifies  under  a  strong 
bias  in  favor  of  the  Bishop.  That's  in  evidence.  He  has  offered  himself 
as  a  willing  aid  to  the  Bishop.  Well,  now,  I  have  no  objection  to  that.  I 
honor  the  man  who  stands  by  his  friend  in  trouble.  If  I  had  a  friend  simi- 
larly situated,  and  I  thought  him  an  honest  man,  I  don't  know  any  length 
to  which  I  would  not  go,  in  my  efforts  to  serve  him.  I  do  not  object  to  that. 
But  when  a  man,  thus  influenced,  offers  himself  as  a  witness,  he  is  very 
likely  to  have  all  his  recollection  of  facts  follow  the  bias  of  his  inclinations. 
He  first  desires  to  have  it  so — he  next  thinks  it  possible  that  it  might  have 
been  so— and  he  finally  thinks  it  was  so.  That's  precisely  the  way.  I 
remember  to  have  heard  a  friend  of  mine  from  New  Jersey,  who  was  very 
much  experienced  in  the  law,  relate  the  manner  in  which  a  procurer  of 
witnesses,  whom  he  had  seen,  could  get  a  witness  at  any  time  to  testify, 
very  honestly,  to  what  'he  did  not  know  at  all.  He  would  say  to  his  wit- 
ness :  "  Well,  John,  you  remember  you  were  talking  on  such  a  day  to 
such  a  man,"  (describing  something  that  rnight  have  taken  place,  from  the 
relation  of  the  parties.)  He  would  reply  :  "  Well,  really,  I  don't  remember 
that.3'  Next  day  he  would  be  accosted  in  the  same  way  by  somebody  else  ; 
and,  after  the  experiment  had  been  repeated  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time, 
John  would  become  perfectly  satisfied  that 'he  did  remember  it,  and  would 
swear  to  it  through  thick  and  thin. 

[Bishop  IVES. — The  Counsel  will  pardon  me  for  interrupting  him,  but  I 
suppose  that  anecdote  may  be  applied  to  all  the  witnesses,  as  well  as  to 
one.  (A  laugh.) 

Mr..  KETCHUM. — Oh  !  certainly.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM  proceeded. — Well,  here  is  Mr.  Dowdney  who  wants  it  to 
be  so.  How  can  we  be  convinced  that  he  is  not  deceiving  himself?  I  will 
not  stop  to  read  his  evidence,  but  I  ask  you  to  remember,  when  you  hear 
it  read,  the  remark  I  now  make.  When  asked  who  had  spoken  to  him, 
requesting  him  to  see  Miss  Riker,  he  could  not  recollect.  I  then  asked, 
"  Did  not  Dr.  Seabury  speak  to  you  ?"  and  his  reply  was,  "  Oh  !  now  you 
mention  it,  I  remember  that  Dr.  Seabury  did."  And  I  suppose  Dr.  Seabury 
is  as  great  a  bugbear  behind  the  scenes  as  Dr.  Hawks,  and  yet  Mr.  Dowd- 
nsy  positively  affirmed  that  he  knew  nothing  of  a  transaction  that  had 
occurred  so  lately  ;  and  I  do  not  think,  if  Dr.  Seabury  be  such  a  person  as 

he  has  been  described  to  me,  that  any  one  who  had  had  an  interview  with 

• 


253 

him  was  likely  soon  to  forget  it.  But  he  does  not  remember  any  thing  of  Dr. 
Seabury  until  we  draw  it  out  of  him.  Now  let  me  refer  to  1  Starkie,  458, 
(note.)  "  Where  proof  is  actually  given  of  a  fact  which  a  witness  could  not 
but  know  and  recollect,  his  expressing  himself  with  doubt  and  uncertainty 
is  to  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  wilful  misrepresentation."  Please-apply  that 
rule  when  Mr.  Dowdney's  testimony  comes  to  be  read.  I  need  not  attempt 
to  bring  any  evidence  to  show  that  he  has  a  strong  bias.  He  was  a  com- 
missioned string-measurer,  ordained  by  the  Bishop ;  the  only  one  I  ever  saw 
in  Court. 

Now  Mr.  Dowdney  contradicts  Miss  Rudderoiv  in  one  particular,  with 
respect  to  the  interview  in  the  Church.  She  says  that  her  sister  was  not 
present,  whilst  he  avers  that  she  was  present.  Well,  now,  what  motives 
had  the  Misses  Rudderow  for  misrepresenting  this  matter  ?  It  seems  to  me 
entirely  inexplicable  that  they  should  purposely  unite  in  misrepresenting 
such  an  immaterial  fact.  They  had,  in  the  morning,  met  and  greeted  the 
Bishop  ;  and  you  will  recollect  that  Mr.  Dowdney  swears  that  he  requested 
the  ladies  to  treat  the  Bishop  well,  for  he  had  heard  of  the  indignity  for- 
merly offered  them,  and  rather  suspected  that  there  would  be  a  cool  recep- 
tion. He  said  there  was  something  like  a  request  that  they  would  treat  the 
Bishop  well. 

[Bishop  IVES. — That's  not  the  evidence.  He  expressed  a  wish  that  every 
thing  might  pass  off  agreeably.] 

Mr. 'KETCHUM. — Yes,  I  believe  that  was  it.  Well,  that  showed  a  fear  of 
something  disagreeable.  He  was  doubtless  happy  to  see  that  the  meeting 
was  cordial.  The  ladies  might  just  as  well  have  stayed  together  when  the 
Bishop  went  out,  and  it  would  have  made  the  case  quite  as  strong  against 
him.  But  they  do  state  the  case  differently  from  Mr.  Dowdney,  and  he 
stands  as  one  to  two.  We  could  not  produce  Miss  Riker,  notwithstanding 
we  tried.  But  Mr.  Dowdney  testifies  that  Mr.  Alvord  was  there,  whom 
they  could  have  produced,  but  did  not  bring  forward,  and  the  inference, 
therefore,  is,  that  Mr.  Alvord  could  not  sustain  him. 

Then  comes  the  other  matter,  as  to  going  to  see  the  Bishop.  There,  I 
think,  Mr.  Dowdney  is  contradicted.  I  do  not  mean  to  refer  to  the  evidence 
particularly,  but  it  seems  to  me  that,  according  to  his  testimony,  Miss  Rut- 
ter  was  one  of  those  who  took  the  side  of  Mr.  Dowdney,  as  objecting  to 
the  use  of  the  Church  by  the  benevolent  society. 

[Bishop  IVES. — I  do  Hot  think  that  Miss  Rutter  was  named  as  objecting. 

Bishop  WHITTINGHAM. — She  was  named  as  one  of  the  efficient  members 
of  tho  society. 

ASSISTANT  CLERK. — I  find  by  referring  to  the  minutes  that  Miss  Rutter 
did  object. 

Mr.  KETCHUM. — This  shows,  then,  some  carelessness  in  the  testimony  of 
tr.  Dowdney.]. 

Mr.  KETCHUM  proceeded — Here,  then,  we  have  all  these  ladies  testifying 

these  facts.  Well,  what  was  there  inconsistent  with  her  former  con- 
duct, in  Miss  Rudderow's  going  to  the  house  of  the  Bishop  to  solicit  from 
lim  the  use  of  the  church  for  a  favorite  object  ?  This  learned  Mr. 
Dowdney  had  undertaken  to  prove  that  the  use  of  the  church,  for  such  pur- 
poses, was  entirely  against  the  laws  of  the  Church  ;  and  she  not  being  her- 
self vefy  well  versed  in  the  ancient  fathers,  and  the  critical  interpretation 
of  the  Scripture  authorities — and  as  she  could  not  at  all  understand  how 
the  church  could  be  desecrated  in  the  service  of  benevolence  towards  the 


254 

4 

poor  and  destitute,  having  perhaps  read  something  about  David's  eating  the 
show-bread  of  the  altar,  .when  he  was  in  danger  of  famishing  from  want 
of  food, — and  so,  with  .a  strong  womanly  desire  to  carry  out  her  object, 
she  resolves  ta  go  to  the  Bishop,  and  she  does  go  to  him,  and  he  decides 
in  her  favor.  I  think  you  will  find  in  the  evidence  that  he  said,  "  Let 
the  Bishop  decide  as  he  may,  you  shall  not  have  the  church,  for  the  law 
is  above  the  Bishop."  But  she  gets  the  church.  Well,  now  supposing 
that  she  was  desirous  of  doing  this  good  act,  and  of  procuring  the  use  of 
the  church  for  this  purpose,  and  no  other  method  being  presented,  was 
there  any  thing  at  all  inconsistent  with  her  former  relations  to  the  Bishop, 
in  visiting  him  for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  his  interference  ?  The  Bishop 
had  insulted  her  sister  and  herself.  She  had  communicated  the  fact  to 
her  married  sister,  Mrs.  Brown,  and  to  her  mother.  But  it  was  resolved 
not  to  make  war  upon  the  Bishop.  Well,  we  must  have  war  or  peace. 
There  is  no  neutrality.  There  is  no  middle  ground  in  these  cases.  She 
was  a  communicant  of  the  Church,  and  he  was  her  authorized  Bishop. 
She  could  not  be  fomenting  her  wrath  all  the  time.  It  became^  neces- 
sary to  appeal  to  the  Bishop  in  a  mere 'business  matter,  and  she  accom- 
panied Miss  Riker  for  that  purpose,  knowing  that  whatever  had  been  his 
conduct,  he  was  invested  with  authority  to  decide,  and .  that  his  opinion 
might  be  in  her  favor.  Now  I  can  see  nothing  in,  that  at  all  out  of  the 
way.  You,  I,  and  every  gentleman  here  are  compelled  every  day  to  have 
business  relations  with  men  whom  we  dislikes-men  that  have,  perhaps, 
insulted  us.  We  know  something  of  that  in  a  crowded  city,  where  we 
are  daily  obliged,  to  come  in  contact,  nay,  to  have  business  relations,  with 
men  whom  we  heartily  despise.  Hers  was  precisely  a  case  of  this  sort. 
This  lady  had  a  certain  object  to  accomplish— she  was  pressing  for  it  with 
great  zeal.  She  went  to  the  Bishop  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  this  object ; 
and  from  this,  forsooth,  the  gentleman  frames  an  argument  about  improba- 
bility and  inconsistency. 

The  same  course  is  pursued  with  respect  to  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare.  Mr. 
Beare  had  official  relations  with  the  Bishop,  arid  his  wife  was  constrained 
to  forbear.  He  was  coming  to  ordain  Mr.  Beare,  and  if  an  invitation  to 
dine  had  not  been  extended  to  him,  it  would  have  been  at  once  remarked  as 
out  of  the  way.  Well,  he  goes  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Beare.  and  of  course 
is  treated  with  civility.  The  conduct  of  Mr.  Beare  and  his  wife  is  perfect- 
ly consistent.  It  is  precisely  that  which  we  had  reason  to  expect.  '  The 
same  argument  applies  to  the  case  of  Miss  Rudderow.  There  was  nothing 
inconsistent  in  the  conduct  of  either  of  these  ladies.  They  had  resolved  to 
bury  the  matter,  and  so  it  would  have  remained  buried  had  not  the  Diocese 
of  South  Carolina —  .  • 

[Bishop  GADSDEX. — Not  the  Diocese.] 

Mr.  KETCHUM. — Well,  individuals  in  the  Diocese,  taken  measures  to 
bring  the  matter  forward,  and  had  not  the  Bishops  made  the  Presentment ; 
and  then,  in  a  manner  contrary  to  their  original  wish,  unwillingly,  the  wit- 
nesses come  forward  and  testify.  Are  they  to  be  sent  back  with  the  im- 
putation that  you  regard  them  as  perjured,  because  it  has  been  shown  that 
their  conduct  has  been  consistent  with  their  original  design-,  to  bury  this 
matter  in  oblivion  ?  I  think  not.  •  » 

But  now,  having  detained  the  Court  longer  than  I  intended,  and  .yet  hav- 
ing,  doubtless,  omitted  much  that  I  ought  to  have  said,  I  roust  rapidly  pro- 
ceed to  a  conclusion. 


855 

You  are  to.  pronounce  your  sentence.  You  are  to  take  the  Respondent 
to  your  arms.  You  are  to  endorse  him,  and  send  him  forth  as  an  accredit- 
ed Bishop  of.  the  Church  of  Christ— as  a  medium  through  which  the  Holy 
Ohost  may  be  communicated  >  or  you  are  to  say  that  he  is  an  unworthy 
member  of  your  order,  and  is  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  .ac- 
credited Fathers  and  Bishops  of  this  Church.  '  What  is  the  charge?  It  has  e 
•been  suggested,  I  learn,  that  it  was  of  a  trivial  character.  Why,  I  do  not 
Icnow  any  offence  which  is  .so  great  an  enemy  to  the  religion  of'Jesus  Christ, 
as-impurity.  When  1  consider  its  secret  ravages  upon  the  soul— when  I 
.consider  the  amount  of  impure  thoughts,  which  aje  themselves  adultery* — I 
see  that  there  is  no  greater  enemy  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  of  its  prac- 
tjcal.  progress  in  (he  world, *than  impurity.  Ami  here  is  an  officer  in  the 
army  of  Jesus  Christ,  -placed  upon  the  watch-tower  to  give  notice  of  the 
enemy's  approach,  and  lo  !  he  e'mbraces  the  enemy  !  He  allows  him  to  en- 
ter and  pollute  the  camp!.  What  would  be  done  were  a  military  officer 
so  to  violate  his  trust  ?  Would  he  not  at  once  be  deprived  of  his  commis- 
sion, and  branded,  and  punished  as  a  traitor  ?  The'governing  power  would 
say,  "  Be  no  more' officer  of  mine  !"  Perhaps  he  might  be  retained  'in  the 
•army,  but  he  would  be  stripped  of  his  office,  for  who  would 'enlist,  or  go  to 
battle,  under  an  officer  who  had  betrayed  his  trust?  .  . 

Here,  then,. is  a  commander  in  one  of  the  grand  divisions  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.  It  is  said  that'  if  you  have  any  doubt  of  his  guilt  you  must 
acquit.,  him.  }. know  that  that  is  a  wholesome  jule  of  law  in  our  civil 
courts-;  but  it  will  not  do  for  the  army  of.  Christ  to  say,  that  here  is  a  general 
in  command  that  we  cannot  .positively  say  is  guilty,  but  whom  we  very 
much  suspect  of  guilf.  Will  it  do  for  the  House  of  Bishops  to  send  forth  a 
suspected  officer' to  command,  because  they  cannot  say  he  is  absolutely 
unfit  to  be  intrusted  ?  And  yet  I  think  you  must  have  clear' evidence':  on 
\vhich  to  convict.;  but  remember;  gentlemen,  remember  that  he  is  an  officer 
of  the  army — that  this  army  can  only  prosper  by  obtaining  a  constant  suc- 
cespion  of  recruits.  Your  great  business  is  to  enlist  these  recruits.  You 
are  the  generals  of  this  army.  The  Commander-in-chief,  whose  eye 
is  upon  you  all,  has  told  you  to  take  care  of  his  Church  ;  and  I  maintain  that 
one  great  object  of  this  trial  is. the  fulfilment  of  that  command4.  You 
cannet  sit  as  a  House  of  Bishop's  without  considering,  in  all  tlrat  you  do,  the 
good  of  the  Church.  Now,  if  you  think  that  the  good  of  the  Church  will 
permit  the  Respondent  to  remain  as  one  of  its'  highest  officers,  I  say' 
"  Amen.."  It  is  not  for -me  to  interpose  my  judgment  against  yours;  but, 
while  you  show  mercy  to  him,  forget  not  your  obligations  to  the 'Church  of 
Christ. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  to  seven  o'clock,  P.  M. 

•    Attest, 

W.  R-.  WHITTINGHAM,  Ckrk. 


Wednesday,  January  1,  1845,  > 
.  .    seven  o'clock,  P.  M.       J  .- 

1  ho  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  -Diocese, 


Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  .Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ; 
the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  all  the  testimony  taken  in  the  case  be 
now  read  over  from  the  Record. 

The  Clerk  read  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Frances  L.  Butler,  of  the  Rev. 
Clement  M.  Butler,  of  the  Rev.  James  A.  Bolles,  of  Miss  Helen  M.  Rud- 
derow,  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  H.  Taylor,  D.  D-.,  of  Miss  Jane  O.  Rudde- 
row,  and  of  Mrs.  Charlotte  E.  Beare. 

The  Court  then  adjourned.  • 

Attest, 
W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


Thursday,  January  2,  1845,  > 
half -past  9  o'clock,  A.  M.  $ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Dioceee, 
Louisiana,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ; 
the  Assistant  Bishop  of  .Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  Clerk  read  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare,  the  Rev. 
James  Milnor,  D.  D.,  William  A.  Muhlenberg.  D.  D.,  the  Rev.  John  F. 
Schroeder,  D.  D.,  the  Rev.  Frederick  J.  Goodwin,  the  Rev.  Henry  W. 
Sweetzer,  Henry  A.  Smythe,  Mrs.  Mary  Franklin,  the  Rev.  John  Dowd- 
ney,  the  Rev.  Edward  Y.  Higbee,  D.  D.,  Miss  Michal  R.  Rutter,  the  Rev. 
Jonathan  M.  Wainwright,  D.  D.,  Aaron  L.  Poyer,  and  John  Rudderow. 

The  affidavits  on  which  the  Presentment  was  founded,  and  which  had 
been  read  in  Court — viz.  of  the  Rev.  Clement  M.  Butler,  the  Rev.  Henry 
M.  Beare,  and  Misses  Jane  O.  Rudderow  and  Helen  M.  Rudderow — were 
then  read  by  .the  Clerk. 

The  third  Canon  of  1844  was  read  by  the  Clerk,  by  order  of  the 
President. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  to  meet  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


Thursday,  January  2d,  1845,  > 
3  o'clock,  P.  M.  $ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  Kentucky.  Ohio, 
New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western 
New  York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware;  the  Assistant  Bishop 
of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South 
Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

•    The  President  directed  the  Clerk  to  read  the  specifications  in  the  Pre- 
sentment in  order. 


v/'iV     >i<;'/rciV)  «f^f>K  V  ?jnii-"fl  ^iJT 

The  Court  proceeded  to  declare,  respectively,  their  opinions  upon  the 
several  specifications. 

The  first  specification  having  been  read  : 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louisi- 
ana, and  Delaware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
respectively  declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  was  Guilty  of  the 
specification  just  read. 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  re- 
spectively declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  is  Not  Guilty. 

The  second  specification  having  been  read  : 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louisi- 
ana, and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
respectively  declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  was  Guilty  of  the 
specification  just  read. 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese,  Western  New  York,  and  Maryland,  respectively  declared 
the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  is  Not  Guilty. 

The  Bishop  of  South  Carolina  gave  an  opinion,  which  was  ruled  out,  but 
ordered  to  be  entered  on  the  Record  of  the  Court,  as  follows,  viz : 

Guilty  of  one  instance  of  improper  excitement  by  vinous  or  spirituous 
liquors,  but  not  of  drunkenness. 

The  third  specification  having  been  read  : 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Kentucky,  New 
Jersey,  the  North  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Louisiana,  Western  New 
York,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of 
Virginia;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South 
Western  Missionary  Diocese,  respectively  declared  the  opinion  that  the 
Respondent  is  Not  Guilty  of  the  specification  just  read. 

The  Bishops  of  Vermont  and  Ohio  gave  opinions,  which  were  ruled  out, 
but  ordered  to  be  entered  on  the  Record  of  the  Court,  as  follows,  viz : 

The  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Vermont : 

Guilty  of  conduct  unbecoming,  indiscreet,  and  open  to  injurious  con- 
structions hurtful  to  the  ministerial  character. 

The  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Ohio  : 

Guilty  of  conduct  indiscreet,  unbecoming,  and  such  as  necessarily  to  ex- 
pose him  to  constructions  hurtful  to  his  character  and  office. 

The  fourth  specification  having  been  read  : 

It  was  ordered  that  it  be  entered  on  the  Record  that  the  fourth  specifica- 
tion has  not  been  tried. 

The  fifth  specification  having  been  read  :• 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louisi- 
ana, and  Delaware ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops  of 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Dio«ese, 
respectively  declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  was  Guilty  of  the 
specification  just  read. 

33 


258  _; 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  re- 
spectively declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  is  Not  Guihy. 

The  sixth  specification  having  been  read : 

The  Bishops  of  •  Illinois,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louisi- 
ana, and  Delaware;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia;  and  the  Bishops  of 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese, 
respectively  declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  was  Guilty  of  the  said 
specification. 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mission- 
ary Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  respec- 
tively declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  is  Not  Guilty. 

The  seventh  specification  having  been  read  : 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  V«rmont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louis- 
iana, and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Dio- 
cese, respectively  declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  was  Guilty  of 
the  said  specification. 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,.  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  re- 
spectively declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  is  Not  Guilty. 

The  eighth  specification  having  been  read  : 

The  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louis- 
iana, and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  Bishops 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Dio- 
cese, respectively  declared  'the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  was  Guilty  of 
the  said  specification. 

The  Bishops  of  'North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  re- 
spectively declared  the  opinion  that  the  Respondent  is  Not  Guilty. 

The  Declaration  of  the  majority  of  the  Court  was  then  reduced  to  writing, 
and  signed  by  those  of  the  members  of  the  Court  who  assented  thereto. 
The  Court  then  adjourned. 

Attest, 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 

Friday,  January  3d,  1845,  ) 
Jialf-past  9  o'clock,  A.  M.\ 

The  Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Present,  the  Bishops  of  Illi- 
nois, Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  New  Jersey, 
the  North  Western  Missionary  Dipcese,  Louisiana,  Western  New  York, 
South  Carolina,  Maryland,  and  Delaware  ;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  South 
Western  Missionary  Diocese. 

The  President  opened  the  proceedings,  with  the  Psalter  for  the  day,  and 
prayers. 

The  Presenting  Bishops  and  the  Respondent  appeared  in  Court. 

The  President  ordered  the  Declaration  of  the  majority  of  the  Court,  re- 
duced to  writing,  and  signed  by  those  who  assented  thereto,  to  be  read  in 

Court-  and  pronounced  as  the  judgment  of  the  same  ;  as  follows,  viz : 

•   -.  "  ;.> 


.       269 

THE  undersigned,  being  the  majority  of  the  Court  of  Bishops,  convened 
under  the  authority  of  the  3d  Canon  of  A.  D.  1844,- passed  in  the  Gfeneral 
Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of.  the  United  States,  to  try 
the  Presentment  addressed  to  the  Bishops  of  the  said  Church  hy  the  Right 
Reverend  William  Meade,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Virginia,  the  Right 
Reverend  James  Hervey  Otey,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Tennessee,  and  the 
Right  Reverend  Stephen  Elliot,  Jr.,  Bishop 'of  the  Diocese  of  Georgia, 
against  the  Right  Reverend  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  York — do  hereby  declare  that  the  said  Court,  having  fully 
heard  the  allegations  and  testimony  of  the  parties,  and  deliberately  consid- 
ered the  same,  after  the  parties  had  withdrawn,  did  declare  respectively, 
whether,  in  their  opinion,  the  accused  was  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  contained  in  the  Presentment,  in  the  order  in 
which  they  are  set  forth  ;  and  the  undersigned,  being  a  majority  of  the  said 
Court,  were  thereupon  found  to  have  concurred  in  pronouncing  that  the  said. 
Right  Reverend  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk  is  guilty  of  the  first,  the 
second,  the  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  articles',  containing  the  charges 
and  specifications  therein  expressed  of  the  said  Presentment,  as  by 
reference  to  the  same  will  more  fully  appear;  and  do,  thereupon,  declare 
him  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  the  same  is  charged  in  the  Pre- 
sentment, and  set  forth  in  the"  said  specifications. 

In  testimony  whereof,  the  said  majority  have  hereunto  set  their'hands, at 
the  session  of  the  said  Court,  holden  in  the  oity  of  New  York,  on  the  2d  day 
of  January,  A.  D.  1845. 

PHIL.  CHASE, 

Bishop  of  Illinois,  and  Sen.  Bishop  and  President  of  the  Court. 

THOS.  C.  BROWNELL,      • 
Bishop  of'  the  Diocese  of  Connecticut. 

JOHN  H.  HOPKINS, 
.  Bishop  of  the  Diobese  of  Vermont.     • 

B.  B.  SMITH, 
Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky.    • 

CHAS.  P.  M'lLVAINE, 
:    •    Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal- Church  in  the.  Diocese  of  Ohio. 

LEONID  AS:  POLK, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Louisiana. 

ALFRED  LEE, 
Bishop  of  the  Diooese  of  Delaware.  • 

.  JOHN  JOHNS, 
Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in. Virginia. 

.    MANTON  EASTBURN, 
Bishop  -of  the  Diocese  of  Massachusetts. 
1  J.  P.  K.  HENSHAW, 

'  Bishop  of  Rhode  Island. 
GEO.  W.  FREEMAN, 

Missionary  Bishop  for  Arkansas,  &c. 

•••'.••  _  •    .  .       • 

:  The  fifth  section  of  the  third  Canon  of  1844  was  then  read. 
The  President  announced  to  the  Respondent  the  judgment  of  the  Court. 

The  Respondent  rose  and  read  a  paper,  to  the  Court,  offering  •his  reasons 
in  excuse  or  palliation  of  the  sentence  to  be  passed,  as  follows : 


RIGHT  REV.  FATHERS  AND  BRETHREN  : 

By  the  decision  of  a  majority  of  your  Right  Rev.  body,  I  am  pronounced 
"  guilty"  of  several  charges  which  have  been  preferred  against  me  ;  and  in 
conformity  with  the  canonical  provision,  I  am  now  before  you  to  declare 
whether  I  have  aught  to  say  in  excuse  or  palliation. 

Human  courts,  Rt.  Rev.  Brethren,  can  take  cognizance  only  of  outward 
actions.  '  It  is  by  these  I  am  to  be  righteously  judged  by  you,  or  by  any 
human  tribunal :  -for  God  alone  seeth  the  heart.  The  acts  laid  to  my 
charge  are  declared  by  a  majority  of  your  Court  to  be  proved :  nor  does  it 
now  become  me  to  question  the  truth  of  your  decision  ; — but  in  excuse,  or 
palliation,  I  hereby  protest,  before  this  Court,  and  before  Almighty  God,  my 
entire  innocence  of  all  impure  or  unchaste  intention. 

It  is  the  intention,  Rt.  Rev.  Fathers  and-  Brethren,  which  constitutes 
guilt ;  but  it  is.  not  every  outward  act  that  interprets  the  inward  inten- 
tion. There  are,  indeed,  acts,  such  I  mean  as  adultery,  incest,  forni- 
cation, which  are  undoubted  proofs  of  indwelling  impurity  ;  and  these  acts 
are  wisely  and  mercifully  defined,  and  forbidden,  under  adequate  penalties, 
by  human  laws.  Such  acts  are  justly  punished  by  human  tribunals,  be- 
cause they  have  been  previously  defined  and  prohibited  ;  and  they  are  safely 
punished  by  human  tribunals,  because  they  are  unquestioned  proofs  of  guilt, 
and  may  be  adjudged  so  to  be  without  danger  of  encroaching  on  the  rights 
of  man,  or  the  prerogative  of  God.  But  the  acts  for  which  I  am  arraigned 
before  you  are  not  of  this  description.  They  are  of  a  new  and  unprece- 
dented class  for  judicial  cognizance  ;  and  I  further  plead  that  they  are  not, 
necessarily,  proofs  of  impurity,  and  that,  therefore,  they  are  not  safely 
punishable  ;  that  they  are  not  defined  and  forbidden  by  prescript  laws,  and 
that,  therefore,  they,  are  not  justly  punishable  by  any  human  tribunal. 

As  the  acts  laid  to  rny  charge  are  not  of  that  decisive  character  as  to  be 
safe  matters  of  judicial  cognizance,  so  neither  are  they  of  that  number  in 
their  kind  as  to  be  proofs  of  habitual  impurity.  Habitual  impurity  of 
thought,  such  as  to  condemn  a  man  before  God,  may  exist  without  showing 
itself  in  gross  crimes  ;  yet'  surely  it  can  never  be  proved  to  exist  by  six  or 
.  seven  acts,  not  amounting  to  forbidden  crimes,  separated,  some  of  them,  by 
an  interval  of  one,  two,  or  more  years,  and  extending  altogether  through  a 
space  of  more  than  five  years.  On  this  ground  I  further  plead  in  excuse  or 
palliation,  that  the  acts  charged  are  too  few  in  number  to  constitute  habitual 
impurity. 

As  the  acts  laid  to  my  charge  are  few  in  number,  so  are  they  remote  in  time, 
retrograding  from  two  and  a  half  to  seven-and  a  half  years  ago.  And 
though  my  conscience  does  not  upbraid  me  with  impurity  in  the  acts  alleged, 
(the  most  of  which  I  heard  for  the  first  time,  in  October  last,  as  alleged  to 
my  discredit,)  yet  have  I  long  lived  in  a  state  of  repentance  for  all  my  sins 
known  and  unknown,  and.  habitually  .sought  forgiveness  for  them  from  the 
mercy  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  And  as  no  act,  for 
nearly  twp  years  and  a  half,  is,  or  can  be  appealed  to,  to  show  the  insincerity 
of  my  repentance,  or  profession  of  repentance,  I  further  plead  in  excuse  or 
palliation,  that  the  acts  charged  on  me  are  too  remote  in  time  to  convict  me 
of  present  guilt. 

If  suffering  were  an  atonement  for  faults,  I  might  plead  the  anguish  cf 

mind  to  which  myself,  my  family,  and  I  will  add,  my  Diocese,  which  is  dearer 

•   to  me  than  both,  have  been  subjected  by  interruption  of  my  pastoral  labors, 


and  the  injuries  and  indignities  to  which,  from  the  first  step  towards  a  pre- 
sentment, I  have>  been  constantly  exposed. 

If  the  consciousness  of  human  fallibility,  the  fear  lest,  by  possibility,  the 
innocent  may  be  punished,  should  restrain  the  confidence  or  mitigate  the  rigor 
of  judgment,  I  would  beseech  my  Rt.  Rev.  Brethren  to  remember,  that  there 
is  not,  as  in  most  other  judicatories,  an  appeal  from  their  decision.  The 
sentence  which  you  will  pronounce,  Rt.  Rev.  Brethren,  will  be  re-considered 
by  no  other  Court  in  the  Church,  but  is  at  once  the  first  and  the  last  whieh 
xhe  existing  laws  of  the  Church  provide. 

As  punishments,  in  all  human  justice,  are  graduated  to  crimes,  I  respect- 
fully request  that  the  Court  will  bear  in  mind  these  grounds  of  excuse  or 
palliation,  (if  they  be  accepted  as  such,)  in  order  that  they  may  righteously 
proportion  my  sentence  to  the  offences  of  which,  by  a  majority  of  their  num- 
ber, I  am  convicted. 

Thus  much,  Rt.  Rev.  Fathers  and  Brethren,  I  have  thought  that  I  might 
say,  consistently  with  Christian  humility,  and  due  respect  for  the  decision  of 
a  majority  of  your  Court.  To  enter  into  a  consideration  of  the  evidence  011 
which  this  decision  is  founded,  and  of  the  influences  which  in  my  humble, 
though  perhaps  too  partial  judgment,  have  combined  to  produce  it,  would  be 
neither  respectful  to  you,  nor  consistent  with  the  canonical  privilege  which 
is  now  awarded  to  me.  On  these  points,  therefore,  I  am  at  present  silent,  as 
in  duty  bound,  and  am  content  to  wait  with  meekness  the  sentence  which 
you  are  about  to  pronounce.  That  I  look  forward  to  this  sentence  with  deep 
anxiety,  I  do  not  affect  to  disguise.  But  believe  me,  Rt.  Rev.  Fathers  and 
Brethren,  my  anxiety  is  noj;  solely  for  myself;  but  also  for  the  Church,  and 
lor  this  Court.  As  respects  me,  your  decision  is  final  for  this  world, and  your 
power  supreme.  But,  brethren,  solemnly  protesting  as  I  have  protested,  and 
do  now  protest,  before  Almighty  God  and  this  Court,  my  entire  innocence  of  all 
impurity,  unchasteness,  or  immorality,  in  the  acts  laid  to  my  charge,  a,nd  con- 
fiding, as  I  firmly  do,  in  the  justice  of  Almighty  God,  and  the  holiest  judg- 
ment of  His  Church,  I  of  course  believe  that  an  unjust  sep-'ence'of  this 
Court  will  neither  be  ratified  in  Heaven,  nor  sustained  oa  earth,  after  the 
light  of  reason  and  truth  shall  have  dispelled,  as  it  surety  will  dispel,  the 
mists  of  prejudice  and  passion.  That  the  sentence  vhich  my  right  rev- 
e.rend  brethren  are  now  to  pronounce  on  the  most  iviworthy  of  their  nu/n- 
ber  may  not  alienate  from  our  body  the  confidence  of  the  Church,  and 
plunge  her  into  irretrievable  distraction,  mav  God,  of  his  infinite  mercy, 
srant  through  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Respondent  and  the  Presenting  .Bishops  then  withdrew  from  the 
Court. 

The  fifth  section  of  the  third  cano»  of  1844  was  then  again  read. 

The  Court  then  proceeded  to  g.Ve  opinions,  respectively,  on  the  sentence 
to  be  pronounced. 


• 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  ILLINOIS. 

THE  Respondent  having  been  found  GUILTY,  it  is  next  to  be  adjudged  as 
to  -the  grade  of  punishment  to  be  inflicted. 

•The  opinion  of  Bishop  Chase  is  as  follows  : 

The  President  of  this  Court  for  the  trial  of  the  Rt.'  Rev.  Benjamin  Tred- 
well  Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  New  York,  January  3,  1845,  being  called  on  in  his 
place  to  perform  the  painful  duty  of  pronouncing  sentence,  and  feeling  deep- 
ly the  importance  of  the  subject,  and  his  own  responsibility  to  God  the 
Judge  of  all  men,  observes  and  adjudicates  as  follows  : 

While  hearing  the  testimony  given  in  this  Court,  on  this  trial,  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  .Higbee,  the  Presiding  Bishop  was  deeply  impressed  with  the  following 
sentiment,  viz.,  that  if  the  Respondent,  Bishop  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
were  guilty  of  the  acts  offered  to  Mrs.  Beare,  he  would  deserve  a  punishment 
of  a  most  degrading  nature,—  even  that  of  "  being  kicked  mtt  of  doors." 

When  cross-examined  on  this  point,  he  further  observed,  that  this  was, 
in  his  opinion,  the  mildest  form  of  disgrace  which  he  could  think  of  inflicting 
for  such  a  deed,  or  words  to  that  effect.  '  This  decided  and  reiterated  opinion 
from  a  clergyman  of  high  standing,  and  a  witness  summoned  on  behalf  of 
the  Respondent,  was  of  a  leading  character,  and  evidently  served  to  turn 
the  course  of  defence  into  a  decisive  channel.  Accordingly,  in  the  sequel 
of  the  trial,  the  accents  grew  fainter  and  fainter  in  palliation  of  the  deeds 
of  immorality  and  impurity  alleged. 

It  was  admitted  by  the  Counsel  of  the  Respondent,  that  if  he,  Bishop  On- 
derdonk, were  guilty  of  the  facts  specified,  punishment  the  most  exemplary 
would  be  his  due,  and  the  same  should  be  inflicted  on  him. 

The  onty  remaining  plea,  therefore,  was  that  the  facts  alleged  were 
"  improbable,"  and  therefore  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  taken  place.  This 
was  the  opinion  and  plea  of  the  defence. 

The  Court  havit«r  decided  to  the  contrary  of  this  plea  and  this  opinion, 
pronounced,  yesterday,  the  Respondent  GUILTY. 

It  now  behooves  this  Court  to  consider  and  determine  the  grade  of  punish- 
ment to  be  inflicted. 

There  are  three  grades  mentioned  in  the  Canon  :  first,  degradation  ;  se- 
cond, suspension  ;  third,  admonition. 

The  President  of  this  Court  decides  and  pronounces  the  first  and  highest 
of  these  three  grades,  viz.,  "  degradation  from  the  Christian  ministry." 

His  reasons  are,  first,  that  he  woul*  have  expected  the  like  punishment, 
•had  the  same  allegations  been  made,  at<J  in  like  manner  proved  against 
himself,  as  they  have  been  made  and  proved  against  his  brother  of  New 
York. 

The  second  reason  is  that  which  has  been  t-lluded  to  and  urged  by  the 
Respondent's  Counsel,  viz.,  that  the  misdemeantrs  alleged  in  the  Present- 
ment involve  a  propensity  to  licentiousness,  and  indicate  habits  of  intentional 
vice  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  purity  of  a  Christian,  and  peculiarly  dis- 
graceful to  the  sacerdotal  character.  Every  minister  of  the  holy  Jesus, 
especially  the  Bishops  of  his  Church,  ought  to  remember  what  the  Lord 
saith  of  "adultery  in  the  heart,"  when  manifest  only  by  a  "fooiV  of 
"  lust."  (See  Matt.  v.  28.) 


263 

And  they  ought  also  to  remember,  and  they  should  never  forget,  the  case 
of  Eli  and  his  sons ;  how,  by  a  false  tenderness  towards  his  own  family,  he 
brought  shame  on  the  Israel  of  God,  and  by  winking  at  the  sins  of  impurity 
in  his  sons,  incurred  the  heavy  displeasure  of  the  Almighty,  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  himself  and  air  his  race.  (1  Samuel,  iii.  11.) 

"  Behold,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  do  a  thing  in  Israel,  at  which  both  the  ears 
of  every  one  that  heareth  it  shall  tingle.  In  that  day  I  will  perform  against 
Eli  all  things  which  I  have  spoken  concerning  his  house.  When  I  begin  J 
will  also  make  an  end  :  for  I  have  told  him  that  I  will  judge  his  house  for- 
ever, for  the  iniquity  which  he  knoweth  :  because  his  sons  made  themselves 
vile,  and  he  restrained  them  not." 

In  pursuance  of  this  divine  denunciation,  the  ark  of  the  Lord  was 
taken  captive  by  the  heathen  ;  the  sons  of  Eli,  Hophni  and  Phineas,  were 
slain  ;  and  the  aged  and  too  indulgent  Elf.  the  High  Priest,  was  precipitated 
to  death. 

That  we  may  escape  these  punishments,  let  us  avoid  the  sins  which  led 
to  them. 

Signed  this  the  3d  day  of  Jan.,  A  .  D.  1845. 

PHILAN.  CHASE, 

President  of  the  Court.  ' 


OIPNION  OF  THE. BISHOP  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

BEING  called  upon  for  my  opinion  in  regard  to  the  sentence  which  ought 
to  be  awarded  to  the  Respondent  in  this  case,  I  avail  myself  of  the  oppor- 
tunity to  offer  a  brief  statement  of  the  considerations  which  have  guided  my 
mind  in  my  decision  of  the  several  specifications  contained  in  the  Presentment. 

I  fully  concurred  in  the  decision  which  struck  from  the  Presentment  the 
general  charge  contained  in  the  ninth  article.  I  considered  H  as  deficient 
in  the  "  specification  of  time,  place,  and  circumstances"  squired1  by  the 
Canon. 

The  fourth  article  of  the  Presentment  vras  not  tried ; — the  principal  wit- 
ness, to  whom  a  citation  was  issued,  having  refused  to  attend. 

The  second  article  charges  the  Respondent  with  having  been  on  a  certain 
occasion  "improperly  excited  by  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors."  The  facts 
sworn  to  on  this  specification  are  of  an  equivocal  character,  and  the  opinions 
of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler  are  not  conclusive  evidence  to  my  mind.  But  as 
the  facts  charged  have  been  fully  admitted  by  both  the  Counsel  of  the  Re- 
spondent, I  have  been  obliged  to  consider  him  as  gui&y. 

The  facts  charged  in  the  third  article  of  the  Presentment  rest  alto- 
gether upon  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  BoMes.  Whatever  impropriety 
that  testimony  may  be  thought  to  indicate,  it  fails  entirely  to  sustain  the 
charge  contained  in  the  Presentment,  and  I  must  consider  the  Respondent 
not  guilty. 

The  chief  gravamen  of  the  Presentment  -rests  on  the  facts  charged  in  the 

first,  fifth,  sixih,  seventh,  and  eighth  articles.     I  begin  with  a  consideration 

of  the  seventh  and  eighth  articles  of  the  Presentment.    The  facts  charged  in 

these  articles  are  the  most  recent  in  point  of  time,  and  they  are  sd  nearly 

'. 


.  : 

264 

related  that  they  may  well  be  considered  together.  The  facts  here  charged 
are  sustained  by  the  positive  and  clear  testimony  of  Mrs.  Beare,  and  sup- 
ported circumstantially  by  that  of  her  husband.  I  consider  their  truth  to  have 
been. virtually  admitted  by  the  Respondent,  at  the  interview  with  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Beare,  and  the  Rev.  Drs.  Milnor,  Muhlenberg,  and  Higbee ;  and  I  regard 
the  testimony  of  the  three  first  named-  gentlemen  as  evidence  of  this  virtual 
admission.  J  am  therefore  compelled  to  say,  that  the  facts  charged  in  these 
articles  are  proved,  and  that  the  Respondent  is  guilty. 

The  facts  stated  in  the  first  article  of  the  Presentment,  though  most  remote 
in  date,  are  nearly  allied  to  those  just  considered  in  the  7th  and  8th  articles, 
being  indicative  of  the  same  state  or  habit  of  mind  in  the  Respondent.  They 
are  proved  by  the  positive  testimony  of  Mrs.  Butler,  which  is  corroborated 
by  the  testimony  (direct  and  indirect)  of  her  husband.  They  are  circum- 
stantially supported  by  the  facts  proved  under  the  7th  and  8th  specifications, 
and  they  have  been  virtually  admitted  as  true  by  both  the  Counsel  of  the 
Respondent,  who  plead  his  excitement  by  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors  in  ex- 
tenuation of  the  offences  alleged  against  him.  lam  therefore  bound  to  con- 
sider him  guilty  of  the  facts  charged  in  this  article. 

•  The  allegations  contained  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  articles  of  the  Presentment, 
are  nearly  connected  in  time,  and  nearly  related  in  character.  Those  con- 
tained in  the  fifth  article  rest  mainly  on  the  single  testimony  of  Miss  Helen 
M.  Rudderow  ;  while  those  embraced  in  the  sixth  article,  rest,  in  like  man- 
ner, on  the  testimony  of  Miss  Jane  O.  Rudderow.  In  both  cases  the  testi- 
mony is  -positive  and  clear ;  and  I  consider  the  testimony  of  both  these  la- 
dies strongly  supported  by  the  habit  of  mind  developed  in  the  proof  of  the 
first,  seventh,  and  eighth  specifications.  I  therefore  find  the  Respondent 
guilty,  on  the  fifth  and  sixth  articles  of  the  Presentment. 

The  defence  of  the  Respondent  rests  mainly  bn  the  insufficiency  of  the 
evidence ;  on  alleged  inconsistency  in  the  conduct  of  the  principal  wit- 
nesses ;  and  on  the  utter  improbability  of  th'e  offences  charged  in  the  Pre- 
sentment. 

It  will  hardly  be  contended,  that  all  the  regulations  of  the  Levitical  law. 
in  respect  to  evidence,  shall  be  regarded  as  obligatory  at  the  present  day  ; 
and  I  consider  the  injunction  of  St.  Paul,  (1  Tim.  v.  19,)  rather  as  a  recog- 
nition of  the  laws  of  the  land  in  which  he  lived,  than  as  laying  down  a  rule 
of  evH°n?°  to  be  forever  binding  upon  all  Christian  men.  The  Canon  un- 
der which  we  are  acting,  seems  rather  to  have  been  framed  with  reference 
to  the  common  law  of  England,  and  the  laws  of  our  own  country,  than  with 
any  regard  to  the  civil  law,  or  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  other  nations. 

The  charges  preferred  are  to  be  in  the  nature  of  an  Indictment,  and  rae  de- 
fendant is  required  to  plead  "  guilty  or  not  guilty."  By  the  civil  or  canon 
law,  the  proceedings  must  be  by  bill,  and  the  Respondent  must  give  his  an- 
swer in  writing,  and  (generally)  on  his  oath.  These  proceedings  are  not 
familiar  to  the  members  of  the  General  Convention  who  frame  our  Canons. 
But  the  public  mind  of  our  country  is  deeply  imbued  with  the  principles  of 
the  common  law,  and  I  must  apply  these  principles  to  the  construction  and 
carrying  out  of  the  Canon  before  us  ;  at  the  same  tune,  I  am  of  opinion,  that 
the  evidence  in  support  of  the  foregoing  charges  would  be  fully  sufficient 
under  the  provisions  of  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  England. 

With  regard  to  the  conduct  of  the  witnesses,  subsequent  to  the  offences 
charged,  I  can  see  no  such  inconsistency  as  is  alleged.  Each  separate  case 
of  affront,  (except  that  of  Miss  Jane  O.  Kudderow,)  must  have  been  sup- 


265 

posed,  at  the  time,  to  stand  alone  ;  and  in  each  case  it  seems  to  have  been 
decided,  on  mature  reflection,  to  bury  the  injury  in  silence.  I  think  I  can 
perceive  sufficient  reasons  for  this  course,  without  imputing  to  the  witnesses 
a  light  sense  of  the  insults  offered  to  them,  or  a  tame  acquiescence  in  those 
insults.  The  peace  of  the  Church,  and  the  honor  of  the  Episcopal  office, 
may  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  grave  consideration,  when  brought 
in  conflict  with  personal  wrongs.  But  apart  from  such  considerations, 
the  public  mind  would  have  been  slow  to  believe  so  flagrant  a  charge 
when  preferred  by  a  single  witness  against  a  Bishop  of  the  Church. 
I  may  rather  say,  the  witness  would  have  been  deemed  a  calumniator, 
and  those  who  abetted  such  a  witness  would  have  been  denounced  as  con- 
.spirators.  That  such  a  result  must  have  followed,  is  very  evident,  I  think, 
from  the  incredulity  which  is  manifested  in  regard  to  the  charges  now  on 
trial,  though  supported  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  so  many  witnesses. 
Cut  if  in  each  separate  case,  the  injured  parties  did  not  deem  it  .expedient 
to  expose  and  denounce  the  Respondent,  then  their  subsequent  course  is  per- 
fectly consistent.  If  they  had  treated  him  in  the  way  they  must  have  felt 
that  his  conduct  deserved,  or  even  with  coldness,  their  deportment  would/ 
have  become  matter  of  observation,  and  they  would  have  been  called  upon 
for  explanations  which  they  could  not  render.  A  dignified,  Christian  cour- 
tesy, therefore,  seems  to  have  been  the  course  most  consistent  with  the  line 
of  conduct  they  had  marked  out  for  themselves,  under  circumstances  of  so 
trying  and  delicate  a  nature.  That  the  charges  preferred  in  this  Present- 
ment, against  a  Bishop  of  the  Church,  are,  prima  facie,  almost  incredible,  will 
readily  be  admitted.  They  indicate  a  habit  of  mind,  and  a  fatuity  of  con- 
duct, altogether  unique  and  extraordinary.  But  a  mere  probability  cannot 
stand  against  the  positive  testimony  of  so  many  unimpeached  and  (as  we 
may  presume)  unimpeachable  witnesses.  I  "am,  therefore,  compelled  to  find 
the  Respondent  guilty  on  the  first,  second,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth 
specifications  contained  in  the  Presentment,  and  on  the  general  charge  of 
immorality  and  impurity. 

It  is  my  opinion,  that  the  appropriate  penalty  provided  by  the  Canon  un- 
der which  we  are  acting,  is  SUSPENSION. 

THOS.  C.  BROWNELL, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Connecticut. 

New  York,  Jan.  3,  1845. 

34 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA.. 

The  following  opinion,  the  reading  of  which  was>  in  my  view,  most  un- 
justly arrested  and  forbidden  in  the  proper  place,  is  introduced  here. 

THE  solemn  question  is  now  submitted  to  my  judgment,  whether  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  New  York,  is  guilty  or  not 
guilty,  according  to  the  testimony  adduced  in  this  Court,  of  the  allegations 
contained  in  the  Presentment  made  against  him  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  William 
Meado,  the  Rt.  Rev!  James  H.  Otey,  and  the  Rt.  Rev.  Stephen  Elliott. 
In  formhi^  my  opinion  on  this  question,  my  only  solicitude  has  been  to  be 
governed  by  the  spirit  and  precepts  of  that  Gospel  by  which  at  last  we 
must  all  be  jua&ed. 

The  first  point,  which  presents  itself  to  my  mind,  relates  to  the  amount 
of  testimony  required  to  sustain  an  allegation  against  an  accused  brother. 
And  here  the  Gospel,  in  my  view,  is  explicit  and  imperative.  Its  direction, 
1  Tim.  v.  19,  is  as  follows: — "Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusa- 
tion, but  before  or  under  two  or  three  witnesses ;"  or,  according  to  the  sense 
of  the  best  authorities,  "  unless  it  be  testified  to  by  at  least  two  or  three 
witnesses."  This  direction,  given  by  the  HOLY  GHOST — given  to  a  Bishop — 
given  to  guide  his  judgment  on  charges  preferred  against  an  elder — is 
precisely  applicable  to  the  present  case  ;  in  which  Bishops,  subject  to  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  called  upon  to  give  judgment  in  respect 
to  accusations  brought  against  an  elder  of  the  Church  in  the  highest  sense. 
I 'feel  that  I  should  do  violence,  therefore,  to  my  clear  convictions  of  duty, 
were  I  to  attempt,  by  any  means,  to  evade  this  Evangelical  rule  ; — a  rule, 
which  the  Church  adopted  in  her  best  and  purest  age,*  and  from  which 
she  has  not  since  felt  herself  at  liberty  to  depart. 

It  is  said,  I  am  aware,  that  this  rule  of  the  Gospel  is  liable  to  conflict 
with  the  rule  of  the  common  law.  Be  it  so.  This  .is  not  an  objection  to 
be  addressed  to.  the  mind  of  a  Christian  Bishop,  bound  in  his  conscience  to 
act'  on  the  irreversible  principles  of  the  law  of  God:  It  is  true,  that,  in 
some  respectSj  the  laws  of  our  country,  being  the  laws  of  imperfect  men, 
are  felt  by  the  Church  to  be  at  -variance  with  the  spirit  and  requirements 
of  the  divine  law;  an'd  that  the  decisions  of  temporal  Courts  are  not 
always  in  accordance  with  the  judgment  of  her  tribunals.  It  is  urged,  I 
know,  that  to  require  two  vrftnesses  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  while  one 
witness  is  admitted  in  the  secular  courts,  niight  lead  to  an  acquittal  by  the 
Church, -of  the  man  who  was  pronounced  guilty  by  the  State.  Were  this 
inevitably. the  case,  which  law  is  to  yield,  the  human  or  the  divine  ?  But, 
suppose  the  amount  of  testimony,  required  to  establish  an  allegation,  be 
the  same  in  both  descriptions  of  courts ;  would  this  necessarily  secure  the 
same  decision  in  both?  Do  not  the  differences  in  men's  perceptions,  and 
judgments,  and  motives,  even  in  the  same  case  and  on  the  same  testimony, 
often  lead  to  opposite  results  ?  And  hence,  have  we  not  before  us  constant 
examples,  in  which  one  court  reverses  the  decision  of  another,  or  one  jury- 
renders  a  different. verdict  from  another?  But  if,  in' the  present  case,  we 

*  See  Apostolic  Canons — 75  Caaon, 


267 

are  to  admit,  for  the  above  reason,  the  necessity  of  acting  upon  the  com- 
mon law  rule  of  evidence  ;  we  should,  for  the  same  reason,  insist  upon  an 
unanimous  verdict;  as  this  is  required  of  juries-  under  such  law..  Besides, 
if  in  this  Court  we  allow,  as  in  our  temporal  courts,  only  one  .witness  to  a 
fact,  then  the  lowest  menial,  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  those  courts,  has  an 
important  advantage  over  a  Bishop  here :  inasmuch  as  the  evidence  before  a 
jury  to  obtain  an  unanimous  verdict,' must  necessarily  be  stronger  and  mor6 
decisive,  than  is  needed  here  where  a  bare  majority  may  condemn.  In 
addition  to  this,  the  accused,  under  the  common  law,  has  the  privilege  of 
challenging  the  members  of  a  jury,  on  the  ground  of  interest  or  prejudice  ; 
while  each  juryman  is  made  to  declare,  under  oath,  that  he  has- not  pre- 
judged the  case,  nor  formed  his  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner.  So  that  in  the  present  trial,  where  there  is  neither  challenge 
nor  oath,  and  where  a  simple  -  majority  are  to  decide,  the  justice  of -the 
common  law,  even  had  the  Gospel  imposed  no  rule  of  evidence,  would 
seem  to  demand  a  more  than  ordinary  strength  of  testimony.  -I  am  obliged, 
however,  by  the  rule  of  the  Gospel  before  laid  down,  to  insist,  in  the  pre- 
sent case,  upon  tiao  witnesses  to  each  accusation  made  against  the  Re- 
spondent. 

It  may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  if  one  witness  testifies  directly  to  a  fact, 
circumstances  corroborating  this  fact  may  be  adduced  in  the  place  of  the 
second  witness.  Admitting  this  view  to  be  entirely  consistent  with  the  Gos- 
pel rule,  yet  how  does  it  affect  the  testimony  in  this  trial  ?  To  my.  mind, 
most  unfavorably ;  as  every  circumstance  attendant  upon  the  alleged  im- 
moralities, goes  to  weaken  the  testimony  adduced  ;  to  show,  not  that  the 
witnesses  actually  perjured  themselves,  but  that,  under  the  influence  of 
imagination  and  prejudice,  and  party  bias,  they  have  made  an  overstatement 
of  the  facts.  Now,  what  are  the  circumstances,  under  which  the  alleged 
misdemeanors  are  said  to  have  been  committed  ?  Some  of  these  will  be 
better  exhibited  under  the  specifications,  to  which  .they 'more  properly  be, 
long.  Still,  there  are  certain  circumstances,  which  characterize  every 
case.  (1)  A  Bishop  is  charged  with  immorality  and  impurity,  on  the  tes- 
timony of  a  single  communicant.  And  a  Bishop,  too,  ,who  had  exhibited 
from  his  boyhood  and  youth,  peculiar  marks  of  piety,  and  freedom  from 
"the.  lusts  of  the  flesh;"  and  had  passed  a  ministry  of  thirty  years  or 
more,  in  the  same  city  and  congregation,  without  reproach  or  suspicion.  It 
might  be  demanded,  surely,  that  such  a  Bishop  should  not  be  .pronounced 
guilty,  except  upon  the  most  stubborn  and  unquestionable  proof;  that  his 
character  and  solemn  assertion  of  innocence,  should  be  allowed  equal 
weight  with  the  testimony  of  one  respectable  witness.  But  (2)  a  Bishop  is 
charged  with  immorality  at  a  time,  when  he  is  known  to  be  especially 
odious  to  his  accusers  on  the  ground  of  doctrine  ;  and  to  have  gained,  a 
signal  triumph  on  this  ground  in  two  successive  Conventions  of  his  Diocese. 
This  circumstance,  to  say  no  more,  ought,  not  to  be  without  its  influence  On 
the  mind  of  the  Court  in  its  judgment  of  the  testimony.  Again  (3)  a  Bishop 
is  charged  with  having  committed  immoral  acts  under  circumstances  the 
most  extraordinary — -circumstances,  in  every  case,  admitting  of  immediate 
detection — as  having  made  rude  assaults  upon  wives  in  the  presence  of 
husbands,  upon  sisters  within  .reach  of  brothers,  upon  parishioners  at 
the  side  of  pastors-!  The  improbability  here  is  enough,  eurely,  to  demand 
scrutiny  and  caution  in  respect  to  testimony.  Again  (4)  a  Bishop  is 
charged  on  the  word  of  witnesses,  who  themselves  were  the-  alleged  victims 


268 

of  his  lustful  violence,  but  without  any  expression  on  their  part,  at  the  time, 
of  that  virtuous  indignation  which,  upon  the  commonest  principles  of  human 
nature,  might  have  been  looked  for ;  without  exclamation,  or  such  act  of 
resistance  as  would  attract  the  notice  of  persons  in  the  same  carriage  or 
apartment.  Even  could  we  account,  on  the  score  of  peculiar  temperament 
or  embarrassment,  for  the  quiet  submission  under  the  alleged  assaults,  of  a 
single  virtuous  female,  is  it  possible  to  believe  that  four  such  females — the 
number  testifying — should  all,  under  the  circumstances,  have  consented  to 
the  outrage  with  no  more  audible  and  emphatic  expressions  of  resentment, 
than  such  as  appear  in  their  testimony  ?  Again  (5)  a  Bishop  is  charged  by 
witnesses  with  having  grossly  and  violently  assailed  their  virtue,  some  three 
or  four  or  seven  years  ago  ;  who,  at  the  time  of  the  insult,  did  not  think  it 
of  a  character  sufficiently  grave  to  demand  exposure  ;  and  whose  hus- 
bands, tdo,  in  some  cases  presbyters  of  the  Church, — notwithstanding  the 
solemn  vows  of  their  office  conspired  with  the  impulse  of  a  fresh  indig- 
nity, to  prompt  them,  in  the  Church's  name,  if  not  their  own,  to  demand 
satisfaction, — consented  to  pass  over  the  alleged  immorality  in  silence. 
Again  (6)  a  Bishop  is  charged  with  assaults  upon  the  virtue  of  the  wit- 
nesses years  ago  ;  while  it  is  in  proof,  that  many  of  these  witnesses  have 
since  shown  towards  this  Bishop  a  kindness  and  cordiality,  wholly  incom- 
patible with  the  sense  of  wrong  complained  of  in  their  testimony.  Again 
(7)  a  Bishop  is  charged  with  acts  of  "  immorality  and  impurity,"  upon 
proof  known  for  years  to  the  most  aged  and  respectable  presbyters  of  his 
Diocese,  but  without  any  action  or  attempt  on  their  part  to  secure  his  Pre- 
sentment by  the  Diocesan  Cohvention — the  body,  first  of  all,  intrusted  by 
the  general  Canons  with  this  duty.  These  circumstances,  all  of  which, 
more  or  less,  bear  upon  the  testimony  of  each  witness,  tend,  in  my  view, 
•greatly  to  weaken  such  testimony  ;  while  they  demand  of  this  Court  the 
most  charitable  judgment  of  the  Respondent's  acts. 

The  first  article  of  the  Presentment  charges  the  Respondent  with  '.'  im- 
morality and  impurity"  in  his  conduct  towards  Mrs.  Frances  Livingston 
Butler,  in  the  summer  of  1837-.  The  allegation  is  founded  on  the  affidavit 
of  her  husband,  the  Rev.  Clement  M.  Butler.  The  only  witness  to  that 
part  of  the  allegation,  which  could  possibly  imply  "  immorality  or  impu- 
rity," is  the  abovenamed  lady.  Her  testimony  must  be  viewed  under  all 
the  discrediting  circumstances  detailed  in  the  above  seven  particulars  ;  and, 
besides,  as  directly  at  variance  with  the  testimony  of  her  husband  in  the 
gravest  specification  of  hrs  affidavit — the  specification  known  to  have  pro- 
duced more  prejudice  against  the  accused  than  any  other  contained  in  the 
Presentment ;  viz.  that  the"  accused  attempted  to  raise  the  clothes  of  his  wife  ; 
a  thing  which  she,  in  her  testimony,  calls  "  a  little  matter,"  and  which  her 
husband,  in  a  letter  explaining  the  discrepancy,  represents  as  of  trifling 
moment.  This,  with  various  minor  contradictions,  which  will  be  readily 
seen  by  a  comparison  of  their  testimony,  leaves  too  little  proof  upon  which 
to  convict  the  Respondent.  In  my  opinion,  therefore,  on  this  first  article, 
he  is  not  guilty. 

The  second  article  charges  him  with  "  immorality  and  impurity,"  in  be- 
ing, on  the  above  occasion,  "  under  the  influence  of,  and  improperly  excited 
by,  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors."  The  indejiniteness  of 'this  allegation 
must  necessarily  render  the  proof  indefinite,  and  hence  the  impression  on 
the  mind  of  the  Court  altogether  doubtful.  It  must  be  dismissed,  therefore, 
as  too  vague  in  itself  and  consequently  as  not  of  necessity  implying  guilt 


259  •     . 

in  the  Respondent,  even  were  it  sufficiently  proved.  It  is. my  opinion,  there- 
fore, that  on  this  article  he  is  not.  guilty. 

The  third  article,  founded  on  the  affidavit  of  the  Rev.  On  Hawks,  is 
contradicted  in  every  material  point  by  the  only  witness  (the  Rev.  Mr. 
Bolles)  adduced  for  the  prosecution.  On  this,  therefore,  in  my  opinion,  the 
Respondent  is  not  guilty. 

The  fourth  article  was  dismissed  by  the  Court  for  want  of  proof.  That 
this  failure  was  not  owing  to  want  of  exertion  on  the  part  of  the  Presenters, 
will  be  seen  by  reference  to  their  various  petitions  to  the  Court,  and  to  the 
correspondence  between  the  Commission  and  Miss  Ann  Wilson. 

The  fifth  and  sixth  articles  are  submitted  with  the  single  remark,  that, 
to  my  mind,  the  absurdities  of  the  testimony  are  -too  palpable  and  enormous 
for  any  human  belief!  I  shall  not  hesitate  here,  therefore,  to  pronounce  the 
Respondent  not  guilty. 

The  seventh  and  eighth  articles  charge  the  Respondent  with  "  immorality 
and  impurity"  in  h'is  conduct  towards  Mrs.  Charlotte  Beare,  the.  wife  of  the 
Rev.  Henry  M.  Beare,  during  the  summer  of  1842.  This  allegation  rests 
upon  the  testimony  alone  of  this  lady.  She  may  be  pious,  and  incapable  of 
intentional  misrepresentation  ;  still  she  is  shown  to  be  fastidious  and  sensi- 
tive in  the  extreme.  That  which  made  a  strong  impression  on  -her  mind, 
in  her  ride  with  the  Bishop  in  the  morning,  seems,  upon  its  being  told  to 
her  husband,  to  have  had  little  effect  upon  him,  but  to  have  been  regarded 
and  treated  as  the  exaggeration  of  an  over-wrought  fancy.  He  urges  the 
Bishop  to  pass  the  night  with  him,  against  a  previous  invitation  to  remain 
at  Mr.  Franklin's  ;  although,  in  going  to  his  house,  the  Bishop  must  ride 
on  the  seat  with  Mrs.  Beare.  And  on  the  way,  too,  his  suspicions  were  so 
little  excited  by  her  complaint  of  the  morning,  that,  according  to  his  testi- 
mony, he  did  not  even  once  look  round  to  note  the  Bishop's  conduct.  And 
then,  when  he  had  arrived  at  home,  and  been  informed  by  his  wife  of  the 
second  assault,  his  composure  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  a  full  belief  of 
the  indignity  alleged.  He  returns  with  her  to  the  parlor,  requests  the  of- 
fending Bishop  to  conduct  the  family  devotions,  and  leaves  him,  with  the 
usual  tokens  of  good  will,  for  the  night.  Morning  comes,  and  they  are  all 
again  seated  quietly  together  at  breakfast.  Soon  after  this,  Mr.  Beare  takes 
the  Bishop  in  his  carriage  to  College  Point.  On  the  way  they  stop  at  Mr. 
Franklin's.  No  coldness  is  here  observed  in  Mr.  Beare's  manner  towards 
the  Bishop  ;  and,  indeed,  no  word  of  complaint  or  remonstrance  is  spoken, 
although  they  were  alone  during  that  morning's  ride/  Neither  is  there  a 
word  spoken  respecting  this  matter,  to  any  of  the  brethren  at  the  Point. 
The  Bishop  is  suffered  to  go  on  his  way  ;  and  days  elapse,  before  the  mat- 
ter becomes  sufficiently  important  to  require  notice.  In  all  this,  there  is, 
to  rny  mind,  a  manifest  want  of  confidence  at  first,  on  the  part  of  the  hus- 
band, in  the  correctness  of  the  apprehensions  of  the  wife.  Something  he 
believed  ;  but  it  required  time  and  frequent  repetitions  of  the  story,  to  fix 
in  his  mind  a  full  belief  of  all  that  she  has  here  .testified.  The  excited  state 
of  Mrs.  Beare,  and  the  manifest  incredulity  of  her  husband,  at  least  for  a 
time,  are  enough  to  cast  suspicion  upon  the  testimony;  to  produce  in  the 
mind  of  the  judge  a  fear,  if  not  a  conviction,  that  imagination  has  been 
mistaken  for  fact.  Besides  this,  the  subsequent  conduct  of  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Beare  towards  the  Bishop  greatly  increases  the  difficulty,  especially  when 
we  consider  that  the  cordiality  and  friendliness  of  that  conduct,  although 
testified  to  by  four  or  five  most  credible  witnesses,  is  wholly  forgotten  by 


270 

themselves.  They  profess  to'  have  no  recollection  of  having  urged  the 
Bishop,  on  his  next  visitation,  to  dine  with  them,  notwithstanding  his  en- 
gagement at  Mrs.  Franklin's ;  while  the  Rev.  Dr.  Schroeder  and  Mrs. 
Franklin  testify  directly  to  the  fact.  Viewing  Mrs.  Beare's  testimony, 
standing  as  it  does  alone,  under  the  light  which  it  thus  reflects  upon  itself, 
I  cannot  regard  it  as  conclusive  or  satisfactory. 

It  is  pleaded,  I  know,  that  what  is  called  the  confess'' n  of  the  Bishop  to 
the  Rev.  Drs.  Milnor,  Muhlenberg,  and  Higbee,  supplies  a  second  witness- 
It  cannot  be  denied,  that  if  the  Bishop  confessed  the  truth  of  the  facts  al- 
leged in  this  case,  it  is  sufficiently  established.  But  here  the  testimony 
is  confused,  and  somewhat  conflicting.  It  seems  that  these  gentlemen  all 
agree  in  the  fact,  that  at  their  first  interview  with  the  Bishop  he  denied 
tkese  facts,  or  such  of  them  as  involved  impurity  ;  and  denied  them  with 
apparent  indignation..  They  also  agree,  that  at  the  second  interview  the 
Bishop-  appeared  to  be  .much  affected,  and  endeavored  to  soothe  Mr.  Beare  ; 
assuring  him  of  his  high  regard,  and  that  he  did  not  question  the  veracity 
of  his  wife.  Now  to  my  mind,  this  last  declaration,  coupled  with  the  deport- 
ment of  the  Bishop  at. the  second  interview,  is  not  only  perfectly  reconcila- 
ble with  his  deportment  and  denial  at  the  first  interview,  but  also  is 
obliged  to  be  reconciled  with  them,  if  we  admit,  as  we  do^  the  truth  of  the 
testimony  of  Dr.  Milnor.  In  the  first  place,  the  indignant  denial  of  the 
first  interview  may  be  reconciled  with  the  ready  admission  of  the  second. 
The  denial  was  made  in  respect  to  actions  alleged  by  a  lady  to  be  impure. 
'  and  made  under  a  sense  of  injustice.  The  admission  was  made,  not  to  the 
lady  bringing  the  allegation,  but  to  her  husband ;  between  whom  and  the 
Bishop  there  subsisted  the  most  affectionate  confidence.  When,  therefore, 
at  the  second  interview  the  Bishop  addressed  Mr.  Beare.  he  addressed  an 
intimate  friend,  for  whom  he  felt  the  warmest  interest,  and  whom  he  re- 
garded as  being  under  a  misapprehension  in  respect  to  himself.  What  con- 
duct then  more  natural,  than  that  of  the  Bishop  towards  his  young  friend  ? 
The  change  of  circumstances  demanded  in  the  Bishop  a  chang'e  of  deport- 
ment. And  when  he  replied  to  the  inquiry  of  Mr.  Beare,  "  Do  you  question 
the  word  or  veracity  of  my  wife  ?"  *  No,  I  do  not  question  her  veracity  ;  but 
you  know  how  easily  in  some  minds  innocent  things  may  be  magnified  into 
faults," — I  see  in  this  no  necessary  contradiction  of  what  he  had  affirmed  the 
previous  day.  But,  in  the  second  place,  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Milnor,  as  to 
his  admonition  of  the  Bishop,  is  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  of  the 
Bishop's  having  admitted  on  the  second  day,  what  he  had  denied  on  the  first. 
Let  us  examine.  On  the  supposition  that  the  Bishop  admitted  on  the  second 
interview  the  allegations  of  Mrs.  Beare,  which  he  denied  on  the  first.  Dr. 
Milnor,  at  the  conclusion  of  these  interviews,  must  have  approached  the 
Bishop,  and,  with  the  conviction  burdening  his  mind  that  the  Bishop  had 
been  guilty,  by  his  own  confession,  not  only  of  gross  impurity,  but  also  of 
direct  and  palpable  falsehood,  addressed  him  in  the  following  language :  (I 
give  his  own  words,)  "I  hope,  Bishop,  that  what  has  occurred  -in  this  in- 
stance will  put  you  on  your  guard  in  future — particularly  as  I  have  heard 
other  rumors  of  a  similar  kind."  Now,  is  this  the  language  of  admonition, 
which  a  grave  and  holy  presbyter,  laboring  unde«  the  above  supposed  con- 
viction of  his  Bishop's  impurity  and  falsehood,  would  have  employed  ? 
Even  making  all  due  allowance  for  his  respect  for  the  Episcopal  office, 
still,  I  ask,  could  the  Rev.  Dr.  Milnor,  in  thus  solemnly  using  his  rightful 
prerogative,  employ  words,  which,  on  the  above  supposition,  must  have  e»- 


tirely  defeated  his  own  purpose,  and  confirmed  the  Bishop  in  self-delusion  ? 
But  the  Bishop  replies  to  the  Doctor.  Is  the  reply  such  as  we  should  have 
looked  for  from  one  who  had  just  confessed  his  guilt  ?  "  In  regard  to  ru- 
mors of  this  kind,  Doctor,  about  clergymen,  there  'are  few  who  have  not  at 
sometime  had  occasion  to. encounter  them."  Now,  if  Dr.  Milnor.  had  un- 
derstood the  Bishop  as  having  confessed  his  guilt,  would  he  not  have  re- 
plied to  this  in  somewhat  such  language  as  the  following  :  "This  may, 
perhaps,  be  a  sufficient  answer  in.  regard  to  unsubstantiated  rumors  ;•  but  as 
you  have  confessed  the  truth  of  Mrs.  Blare's  statements,  I  do  not  see  how  it 
can  apply  here."  Instead,  however,  of  such  a  course  of  remark,  the  Doc- 
tor simply  rejoins  to  this  effect :  "  Why, -Bishop,  I  have  been  a  clergyman 
in  this  city  for  some  thirty  years,  and  I  am  not  aware  that  any  such  rumors 
have  been  in  circulation  about  myself."  Immediately  upon  this  the  rever- 
end presbyters  leave  the  Bishop's  presence.  But  what  course  do  they  adopt 
concerning  what  had  passed  ?  Do  they  act  like  presbyters  convinced  of 
their  Bishop's  guilt  ?  It  is  true,  one  of  them  expresses  his  disappointment 
at  the  result  of  the  interview,  in  very  strong  terms.  What,  however,  is 
their  united  action  ?  For  this  must  be  regarded  as  the  true  exponent  of  their 
settled  conviction  about  the  matter.  They  agree  to  drop  it,  and  never  again 
to  mention  it.  Here  their  testimony  concurs.  We  are  bound,  therefore,  in 
charity  to  themsel'ves  to  infer,  that  they  considered  the  Bishop  as  having 
made  no  confession  of  guilt,  and  as  having  done  nothing  which  realty  called 
for  the  discipline  of  the  Church. 

On  this  last  specification,  therefore,  my  opinion  is,  that  the  Respondent 
is  not  guilty.  •  .  . 

It  is  said,  I  am  a.ware,  that  the  allegations,  all  having  respect  to  the  same 
kind  of  acts,  strengthen  each  other.  This  may  be  true,  when  we  come  to 
consider  the  motive  or  habit  of  mind  of  the  actor ;  but  not  in  determining 
the  fact  of  his. having  acted  as  alleged.  The  rules  of  evidence  under  the 
common  law  require,  that  each  fact  alleged  must  be  proved,  as  if  it  were 
the  only  one.  But,  in  assigning  motive  or  character  to  an  action,  we  may 
safely  inquire  into  the  frequency  and  the  circumstances  of  its  commission. 
For  example :  A  prisoner,  arraigned  for  murder  on  a  number  of  indict, 
ments,  must  be  tried  on  each,  as  if  it  stood  alone.  And,  in  case  the  evi- 

•dence  on  each  should  be  found  insufficient,  no  jury  would  for  one  moment 
think  of  allowing  their  number  to  operate  in  supplying  this'  deficiency  of 
proof.  But  if  a  prisoner,  already  convicted  of  manslaughter,  should  be 
arraigned  for  murder  ;  and  the  question  was,  whether  the  act  proved  had 
been  committed  with  malicious  intent  to  kill,  then  it  might  be  lawful  in 
settling  this  question  to  have  respect  to  his  disposition  and  character,  as 
developed  on  former  trials.  The  casq  before  us,  however,  involves  simply 
a  question  of  fact :  Is  the  Respondent  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  the  immoral 
acts,  as  severally  specified  in  the  Presentment  ?  Each  act,  therefore,  must 
upon  every  rule  of  evidence  be  proved,  as  if  it  were  the  only  one  charged. 
•And,  as  each  act,  in  my  opinion,  has  not  been  proved,  I.  consider  the 
Respondent  NOT  GUILTY  under  the  Presentment. 

L.  SILLIMAN  IVES, 

.    .  Bishop  of  North  Carolina. 


272 


Adjudication  of  Sentence  in  the  Case  of  the  Presentment  against  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Tredioell  Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  New  York, 
ly  the  Bishop  of  North  Carolina. 


[THE  Bishop  of  North  Carolina,  in  submitting  the  following  considerations  for 
the  mildest  sentence  upon  the  Respondent,  does  it  with  the  distinct  avowal  that, 
in  his  judgment,  these  considerations  should  have  secured  the  Respondent's  ac- 
quittal ;  and  that  nothing  but  the  provisions  of  the  Canon,  and  duty  to  the  accused, 
could  have  moved  him  to  concur  in  any  sentence.] 

In  consideration, 

1.  Of  the  long,  faithful,  and  irreproachable  ministerial  life  of  the  Rt.' 
Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  convicted   by  a  majority  of  this  Court  of 
certain  allegations  of  immorality  ; 

2.  Of  the  character  of  these  allegations,  viewed  in  connection  with  the 
naturally  free  and'paternal  manner  of  the  said  Bishop; 

3.  Of  the  staleness  of  the  acts  alleged  in  the  Presentment  against  him, 
and  of  which  he  stands  convicted  ; 

4.  Of  the  peculiar  and  remarkable  circumstances  under  which  these 
acts  are  alleged  to  have  been  committed  ; 

5.  Of  the  fact  that  these   acts  were  not  considered  at  the  time  by  the 
offended  parties  as  of  sufficient  consequence  in  themselves  to  call  for  inves- 
tigation ; 

6.  Of  the  still  more  extraordinary  fact,  that  after  the  things  charged  had 
come  to  the  knowledge,  and,  in  one  case,  actually  been  made  the  ground  of 
the  solemn  and  deliberate  action,  of  three  or  four  of  the  most  distinguished 
presbyters  of  this  Diocese ;  they  were  dismissed,  or  by  common  under- 
standing and  agreement  dropped  as  not  calling  for  further  notice  ; 

7.  Of  the 'not  less  singular  circumstance,  that  although  the  improprieties 
alleged  had,  for  some  years,  been  known  ;  and  the  first  and  highest  author- 
ity for  presentment  had,  by  Canon  of  the  General  Convention,  been  lodged 
in  the  Diocesan  Convention  ;  yet  that  no  member,  either  clerical  or  lay,  of 
the  Diocese  of  the  said  Bishop  has,  according  to  the  plea  set  up,  made  the 
smallest  effort  for  his  presentment ; 

8.  Of  the  aggravating  circumstance,  that  the  said  Bishop  has  for  years 
been  suffering  under  the  imputation  of  the  gravest  charge  sworn  to  by  a 
presbyter  of  the  Church  ;  but  actually  withdrawn  from  the  Presentment, 
as  unfounded,  and  sworn  to  be  false  by  one  of  the  witnesses  j  and, 

9.  Of  the  gratifying  fact — gratifying  I  doubt  not  to  every  member  of  the 
Court — that  the  said  Bishop  of  New  York,  whatever  may  have  been  his 
previous  habit  of  mind,  has  for  nearly  three  years  last  past,  and  since  the 
caution  he  received  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Milnor,  given  the  best  proof  in  an 
irreproachable  life  that  that  habit  has  been  overcome ;  and  that  he  is  now 
successfully  and  valiantly  leading  the  hosts  of  GOD  against  the  world,  the 
flesh,  and  the  devil : — 

In  consideration  of  these  things,  and  still  adhering  to  the  conviction 'de- 
clared in  my  opinion,  that  the  Respondent  is  not  guilty  ; 

I,  LEVI  SILLIMAN  IVES,  Bishop  of  North  Carolina,  adjudge  to  the  said 
Rt.  Rev.  BENJAMIN  TREDWELL  ONDERDONK,  Bishop  of  New  York,  the 
smallest  degree  of  admonition  which  the  Canon,  under  which  we  pass  sen- 
tence, will  admit. 


273 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  VERMONT, 

ON  THE  PRESENTMENT  OF  THE  RT.  REV.  BENJAMIN  T.  ONDERDONK,  D.  D. 

I.v  pronouncing  sentence  as  one  of  the  members  of  this  Court,  and  on  an 
occasion  of  such  grave  and  peculiar  interest,  I  think  it  due  to  the  judicial 
character  of  my  office,  and  to  the  high  importance  of  the  cause,  to  state  my 
opinion  at  large,  together  with  the  reasons  of  my  decision. 

The  accused  stands  before  us  on  a  solemn,  Presentment  by  three  Bishops 
for  IMMORALITY,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  third  Canon  passed  by 
the  General  Convention  at  its  session  A.  D.  1844.  The  specifications 
relied  upon  in  proof  of  the  general  charge,  exhibit  sundry  acts  of  an  inde- 
cent and  grossly  insulting  character  towards  respectable  ladies,  which  the 
Respondent  is  said  to  have  committed  in  despite  of  their  indignant  resistance, 
by  thrusting  his  hand  into  their  bosoms,  and  otherwise  using  such  immod- 
est familiarities  with  their  persons  as  are  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the 
profession  of  a  private  .Christian,  much  more  intolerable  in  the  case  of  a 
minister  of  the  Gospel,  and  most  of  all,  inconsistent  with  the  pure  example 
a  Bishop,  who  is  pre-eminently  bound  to  set  a  pattern  which  the  clergy  and 
the  people  of  .his  charge  may  safely  follow. 

In  addition  to  these,  the  Presentment  specifies  one  instance  of  undue  and 
improper  excitement  with  vinous  or  spirituous  liquor  ;  and  to  the  whole, 
embracing  six  distinct  offences  from  the  month  of  June,  A.  D.  1337,  to  the' 
month  of  July,  A.  D.  1842,  the  accused  has  entered  the  plea  of  NOT 
GUILTY.  I  place  out  of  view,  in  this  enumeration,  the  third  specification, 
which  was  not  fully  proved  ;  although  I,  together  with  another  of  the 
Bishops,  presented  a  verdict  which  we  conceive  to  have  been  warranted  by 
the  evidence.  I  also  put  out  of  view  the  fourth  specification,  which  was 
not  tried  at  all,  by  reason  of  the  very  reprehensible  conduct  of  the  witness, 
who  refused  to  give  her  testimony.  And  the  ninth  article  of  the  Present- 
ment, which  was  deficient  in  the  canonical  requisites  of  time,  place,  and 
circumstance,  was  stricken  out  by  order  of  the  Court  —  so  that  the  six  re- 
maining offences  constituted  the  whole,  which,  by  a  majority  of  eleven  to  six, 
have  been  decided  against  the  accused,  after  a  long  and  laborious  trial  of 
twenty-one  days,  and  a  careful  examination  of  the  law  and  the  testimony, 
with  the  assistance,  on  both  sides,  of  able  and  experienced  Counsel. 

As  one  of  the  eleven  Bishops  who  united  in  the  verdict  of  guilty,  1  shall 
now  proceed  to  state  my  view  of  the  case  ;  and  this  I  shall  probably  be 
best  able  to  do  with  clearness  and  precision,  by  considering  the  principal 
points  of  the  argument  presented  by  the  Counsel  for  the  accused. 

It  was  eloquently  urged  on  behalf  of  the  Respondent,  that  the  whole 
proceeding  was  to  be  discountenanced  because  it  disturbed  the  peace  of 
the  Church  —  because  it  was  the  offspring  of  party  feeling,  engendered  by 
theological  controversy,  and  because  it  was  brought  forward  by  a  conspir- 
acy to  destroy  the  Respondent's  character  and  usefulness  from  motives  of 
personal  enmity. 

Now  to  this  preliminary  statement  I  could  attach  no  weight  whatever, 
because  the  first  part  of  it  involved  what  I  deem  a  serious  error  in  prmci- 

35 


/•  •**' 

pie,  apd  the  remainder  'was  based  upon -an  error  in  fact,  totally  unwar- 
ranted by  the  testimony,  and  on  the  face  of  it  bearing  the  aspect  of  a  very 
odious  charge  against*  a  considerable  number  t»f  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the 
Church,  including  the  three  Presenting  Bishops,  and  the  witnesses,  whose 
characters  are  certainly  unimpeached,  and  therefore,  Hs  this  Court  may 
fairly  presume,  are  unimpeachable.  For  we  cannot  forget  that  the  Coun- 
sel on  the  other  side  not  only  denied  the  accusation  in  positive  terms, 
but  openly  invited  the  proof  of  this  alleged  conspiracy,  and  formally  waiv- 
ed their  right  to  object  to  it,  although  -in  strictness  it  was  irrelevant  to  th<? 
issue.  On  the  ground  of  their  consent,  several  members  of  the  Court,  of 
whom  I  was  one,  expressed  their  willingness  to  listen  to  the  evidence ;  and 
yet  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent  declined  the  opportunity  thus  fairly  af- 
forded to  them.  Under  these -circumstances  I  should  have  thought  it  due 
to  candor  to  withdraw  this  gratuitous  and  offensive  charge.  And  I  con- 
fess myselT  unable  to  discover  how  the  repetition  of  it  in  any  form  could 
be  justified,  even  under  the  largest  allowance  for  the  art  of  rhetorical  am- 
plification.' • 

The  error  in  principle,  according  to  my  view  of  the  matter,  lies  in  the 
supposition  that  the  peace  of  the  Church  can  ever  be  invaded  by  a  just 
administration  of  discipline,  since  there  is  nothing  more  important  to  her 
peace  than  the  right  performance  of  this  very  duty.  We  might  as  well  be 
told  that  the  peace  of  the  community  will  suffer  by  the  prosecution  of  of, 
fenders  against  the  laws  of  the  land,  as  th?t  the  peace  of  the  Church  can 
suffer  by  the  prosecution  of  offenders  against  the  sacred  rules  of  her  di- 
vine institution. 

The  inspired  injunctions  of  St.  Paul  are  numerous  and  weighty  on  this 
very  point.  And  certain,  it  is,  that  the  peace  which  might  be  for  a  time 
preserved  in  appearance' by  the  toleration  of  corruption  especially  in  the 
clergy,  would  only  lead  in  the  end  to  the  utter  subversion  of  the  Church, 
either  by  forcing  the'  better  portion  of  her  people  to  cast  off  all  respect  for 
her  authority,  or,  if  the  infection  should  become  universal,  by  converting 
her  into  a  synagogue  of  Satan,  while  all  her  spiritual  privileges  should  be 
taken  from  her  faithless  hand,  and  given  to  others.  We  have  to  thank  God, 
however,  that  our  system,  on  this  whole  important  subject,  sheds  the  clear- 
est light  upon  the  path  of  duty.  Fof  not  only  do  our  ordination  services 
set  forth  in  the  most  solemn  .and  affecting  terms  the  purity  of  conduct  re- 
quired by  our  office,  and  the  duty  of  our  being  examples  to  the  flock  of 
Christ — not  only  do  the  Cartons  of  the  Church  expressly  -direct  that  the 
clergy  shall  be  subject  to  inquiry  and  trial  for  every  departure  from  their 
sacred  vows — but  even  in  our  26th  article,  whose  especial  object  it  is 
to  show  that  the  unworthiness  of  the  minister  doth  not  hinder  the  effect 
of  the  sacraments,  we  read,  at  the  close,  the  following  words :'  "Neverthe- 
less it  appertaineth  te  the  DISCIPLINE  of  the  Church  that  INQUIRY  be  made  of 
evil  ministers,  and  that  they  be  .ACCUSED  by  those  that  have  knowledge 'of  their 
offences,  and  finally,  being- found  guilty,  by  just  judgment,  be  DEPOSED." 

But  what  becomes  of  all  this  admirable  provision  for  discipline  if  the  fear 
of  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church  is  to  deter  our  Bishops  from  bringing  to 
justice  an  offend  ing  colleague?  And  rf'thosewho  in  the  language  of  our  article 
"  have  knowledge"  of  the  offences  of  an  evil  minister  refuse  to  bear  witness 
to  the  facts,  and  if  others  exert  themselves  to  stifle  investigation  by  working 
upon  the  interests  or  the  fears  of  their  weaker  brethren,  can  there  be  a  doubt 
in  any  honest  and  thoughtful  mind  that  such  persons  commit  a  grave  trans- 


275 

gression  against  the  God  of  Truth,  oppose  the  wholesome  laws  of  the  Church, 
and,  'SO  faras  in  them  lies,  nullify  one  of  the  plainest  maxims  of  religious 
duty  ?  Offences  of  a  similar  character,,  obstructing  the  administration  of 
justice  in  our  temporal  courts,  are  rightly  punished  by  fine  and  imprison- 
ment. (Bl.  Com.  4,  120;  6  East.  464.)  And,  therefore,  while  I  lamenj. 
that  there  are  any  among  our  ranks  who  pay.  more  respeet  to  the  summons 
of  an  earthly  magistrate  than  to  the  rules  of  bur  system  or  to  the  authority 
of  this  Court,.yet  I  rejoice  that  the  majority  are  resolved  to  do  their  duty  be- 
fore God  without  fear,  favor,  or  affection  ;  confident  that  the  only  peace  worth 
desiring  is  the  peace  which  His  blessing  secures,  and  leaving  the  conse- 
quences to  Him  who  has  promised  that  all  things  shall  work  together  for 
good  to  those  that  love  Him.  • 

But  this  brings. me  to  the  next  branch  of  the  defence  to  which  the  Counsel 
for  the  Respondent  has  invited  our  attention.  We  have  been  told  that  the 
Canon  under  which  we  are  called  to  act  authorizes  us  only  to  try  present 
immorality,  whereas  the  most  recent  acts  charged  in  the  Presentment  oc- 
curred more  than  two  years  ago,  and  immorality  then,  is  not  sufficient  to 
prove  immorality  now. 

Assuredly,  if  this  argument  were  admitted,  it  would  'not  only  be  a  com- 
plete defence  against  this  Presentment,  but  against  all  Presentments,  and  in 
all  cases  whatever.  Happily,  however,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Canon  on 
which  so  strange  an  incongruity  can  be  fairly  chargeable.  Most  manifest 
it  is,  that  immorality  can  only  be  proved  by  acts,  and  that  those  acts  cannot 
be  present,  but  must  needs  be  past  and  finished  before  it  is  possible  to  make 
them  the  basis  of  the  accusation.  Hence  it  results  that  if  present  immo- 
rality be  the  only  ground  of  .trial,  while,  nevertheless,  the  acts  by  which 
alone  it  can  be  proved  must  needs  be  past  before  a  trial  can  be  ordered,  we 
should  have  our  whole  discipline  reduced  to  a  palpable  mockery,  demanding 
conditions  which  are  perfect  contradictions  in  terms.  I  cannot  think  so 
meanly  of  the  intellect  of  the.  Counsel  as  to  suppose  them  converts  to  their 
own  reasoning,  although  they  seem  to  have  thought  it  plausible  enough  for 
the  tribunal  to  which  it  was  addressed. 

True  indeed  it  is  that  the  acts  charged  against  the  Respondent  are  not  re- 
cent. But  where  are  we  to  draw  the  line  ?•  The  gist  of  the  Presentment  lies 
in  the  violation  of  the  consecration  vows,  and  any  breach  of  the  Respondent's 
solemn  promises  to  God  and  the  Church  may  be  made  a  ground  of  accusa- 
tion. We  can  find  no  other  limitation- than  this,  and  have  neither  the  right 
nor  the  power  to  create  one.  Hence,  although  we  may  regret  that  the  facts 
in  evidence  before  us  have  not  long  ago  been  made  the  subject  of  investiga- 
tion, yet  it  is  not  our  province  to  convert  delay  into  impunity.  Probably 
they  would  have  been  noticed,  as  they  ought,  if  the  defect  in  our  Canon  law 
had  been  supplied  at  .an  earlier  day.  But  even  if  it  be  granted  that  justice 
has  slept  too  long,  would  it  follow  that  she  ought  never  to  be  awakened  ?  Or 
will  it  be  seriously  supposed,  that  because  the  accused  ought  to  have  been 
pronounced  guilty  two,  four,  or  seven  years  ago,  therefore  he  should  be 
proclaimed  innocent  now  ? 

It  has,  however,  been  said  that  this  lapse  of  time  is  sufficient  to  authorize 
the  inference  of  repentance.  To  this  I  reply,  first,  that  repentance  is  afact 
requiring  positive  testimony.  '  And,  secondly,  that  the  inference  which  we 
are  ask^d  to  draw,  even  if  allowable  in  the  absence  of  proof,  would  be  ut- 
terly absurd  in  the  present  case,  because  it  would  contradict  the  plea  of  Not 
Guilty,  which  the  Respondent  has  placed  upon  the  record.  How  preposter- 


276 

ous  would  it  be  to  infer  that  he  has  repented  of  his  offences,  when  he  thus 
denies  that  he  ever  committed -them  ! 

I  was  quite  unable  to  perceive  the  consistency  of  this  notion  of  repentance 
with  the  next  argument  of  the  Respondent's  senior  Counsel,  in  which  it  was 
insisted  that  there  was  no  immorality  in  the  acts,  specified.  Not  without 
extreme  surprise,  I  confess,  did  I  listen  to  this  assertion.  Nor  can  I  believe, 
that  if  similar  liberties  had  been  taken  with  his  own  female  connections,  he 
would  have  hesitated  about  their  immoral  character  and  tendency.  I  do  not 
think  it  necessary,,  by  any  means,  to  impute  adulterous  designs  to  the  Re- 
spondent, nor  to  assume  any  secret  motive  beyond  that  which  must,  in  ordi- 
nary construction,  be  connected  with  the  acts  themselves.  But  what  father 
could  tolerate  such  conduct  towards  his  daughter  ?  What  brother  towards  his 
sister  ?  What  husband  towards  his  wife  ?  The  common  sense  and  instinc- 
tive judgment  of  every  civilized  community  would  condemn  such  acts  as 
utterly  unworthy  any  moral  man.  How  unworthy  then  of  the  professing 
Christian  !  Could  any  private  person  be  admitted  to  the  communion — any 
candidate  to  the  ministry — any  priest  to  the  episcopate,  in  the  face  of  such 
testimony  ?  And  how  passing  strange,  that  when  the  hands  of  the  chief 
pastor  in  our  largest  Diocese  have  be<en  busied  in  wounding  every  sentiment 
of  female  delicacy,  and  outraging  all  the  modesty  and  decorum  of  the  sex, 
the  zeal  of  the  most  devoted  advocate  can  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  in  all 
this  there  was  no  immorality  ! 

Two  other  lines  of  defence,  however,  have  been  taken,  of  which  one  turns 
upon  the  number  of  the  witnesses  and  the  other  upon  their  credit.  The  first  of 
these  assumes  that  there  must  be  two  witnesses  for  every  distinct  specification 
of  the  Presentment;  and  this  has  been  ingeniously  argued  from  the  language 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  from  the  precept  of  'St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  and  from  the 
ecclesiastical  law  of  our  mother  Church  of  England.  And  as  it  is  a  point 
of  great  importance  and  some  apparent  difficulty,  and  one  that  has  had  con- 
siderable influence  upon  the  verdict  of  the  minority  of  the  Court,  I  shall 
enter  fully  into  the  argument,  in  the  hope  of  illustrating  the  principles  of 
our  past  as  well  as  of  our  future  action. 

In  order  to  treat  the  subject  with  all  the  fairness  in  my  power,  I  shall 
commence  with  the  evidence  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  then  take  up  the 
authority  of  the  civil  and  canon  law.  And  I  think  it  will  be  manifest,  on 
the  whole,  that  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  regard  the  rule  for  which  the 
Respondent's  counsel  have  contended,  but  that  we  are  bound  to  apply  the 
ma.xims  of  evidence  as  derived  from  the  common  law,  and  universally 
practised  in  our  age  and  country. 

I  willingly  grant  that  the  general  rule  of  evidence  in  the  Mosaic,  system 
required  two  witnesses  to  the  substantial  charge,  or  the  corpus  delicti.  But 
to  this  general  rule  there  were  many  exceptions,  as  plainly  appears  from 
the  cases  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  xxii.  13-29.  There  was 
a  great  principle,  however,  in  this  divine  system,  of  far  higher  importance 
than  any  mere  question  about  the  number  of  witnesses,  namely,  the  princi- 
ple of  equal  rights  in  the  administration  of  justice  which  it  secured  to  all 
men.  For  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  Mosaic  law  furnished  any  pecu- 
liar protection  to  the  priesthood.  The  same  evidence  which  was  admissible 
against  the  lowest  and  the  least  of  the  people,  was  admissible  against  the 
High  Priest  himself:  and  the  law  of  the  Church  and  the  law  of  the  land 
were  one  and  the  same.  Now  if  it  were  possible  in  our  age  and  coun- 
try to  give  the  protection  of  such  a  rule  to  the  whole  community,  there 


277 

might  be  some  plausible  ground  on  which  we  could  sustain  it.  But  as  this 
is  plainly  out  of  our  power,  why  should  we  make  an  invidious  and  unjust 
distinction  in  favor  of  the  clergy  ?  And  if  we  adopted  such  a  rule,  under 
these  circumstances,  should  we  not  purchase  this  matter  of  detail  at  the  cost 
of  violating  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Jewish  law,  which  enjoined  the 
same  free  and  equal  administration  of  right  to  the  priest  and  the  layman  ? 

As  the  matter  now  stands,  we  do  indeed  differ  from  the  Mosaic  law  in 
this  and  many  other  details,  but  we  agree  with  it  in  its  most  important 
principle.  Who  would  be  so  unwise  as  to  sacrifice  such  a  principle  for  the 
sake  of  an  unimportant  detail  ? 

My  second  answer,  however,  may  to  most  minds  be  much  more  conclu- 
sive. It  is  simply  this,  that  the  Gentile  Church  of  Christ  is  subject  in  no 
respect  to  the  civil  or  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  Mosaic  system.  That 
point  \vasdistinctlysettled  by  the  Apostolic  counsel  at  Jerusalem,  (Acts,  xv.) 
and  therefore  no  one  can  consistently  aver  that  the  rule  of  evidence  enjoined 
on  the  ancient  Jews  was  ever  designed  to  bear  on  us  with  the  slightest  weight 
of  obligation. 

The  whole  array  of  scriptural  authority,  therefore,  must  be  reduced  to  the 
single  text  in  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  [v.  19.]  "  Against  an  elder 
receive  not  an  accusation  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses,"  on  which  we 
may  be  quite  satisfied  with  the  commentary  of  the  learned  Hammond,  as 
follows :  "  What  is  the  meaning  of  receiving  an  accusation  here,"  saith  he, 
"  must  be  explained  by  the  judicial  proceedings  among  the  Jews,  where, 
before  the  giving  of  the  sentence,  there  were  three  parts,  first,  the  admission 
of  the  cause,  or  suit,  when  the  judge  doth  not  reject  the  complaint  or  accuser, 
and  that  is  here  xar^yopiotv  irapaos^stfsat,  to  admit  an  accusation.  After 
the  complaint  is  admitted,  then,  second,  there  is  the  confirmation  of  the  suit 
or  complaint  when  the  accuser  confirms  his  suggestion  by  oath.  The  third 
part  is  the  searching  out  of  the  cause  by  arguments  afterwards  produced 
and  considered  of  by  the  judge.  The  first  of  these  only,  it  is  that  belongs 
to  this  place,  the  admission  of  the  complaint  or  accusation,  which  against  a 
rfl£<r/3jTSpo£  or  governor  of  the  Church  is  not  allowed  under  two  or  three 
witnesses  in  respect  of  the  gravity  of  his  person  and  weight  of  his  office 
or  calling,  who  must  not  be  defamed  (as  the  being  brought  into  court  is  a. 
kind  of  defamation)  if  there  be  not  great  cause  for  it."  The  same  inter- 
pretation is  given  in  Poole's  Synopsis  :  "  Aliud  est  Accusatio  aliud  Judicium 
de  accitsato  sine  scntentia  Judicis  absokenlis  veLcondemnantis.  Lege  Mosis 
nemo  damnari  poterat  criminis  nisi  causa  probata  per  tpstes  duos.  At  poterat 
ad  unius  testis  (qui  non  erat  infamis)  dictum  vir  plcbeius  capi,  aut  contra  cum 
inquisiiio  incipi ;  non  ita  autem  contra  scnatorem  cui  aequiparafur  Presbyter. 
Tn  judiciis  Hcbracorum  tres  eranl  paries  sine  gradus.  1.  ADMISSIO  CAUSAE 
she  lltis  quum  Jvdcx  acciisationem  non  rejlcil.  ID  HIC  EST  xarr^opiav  tfapa- 
es^es'cai.  2.  Confirmatio  Htis  accusalorisjuramcnto.  3.  Tnquisitio  litis  argu- 
mcntis  utrinque  productis.  Nota  non  did,  NE  DAMNA.  sed  NE  RECIPE  ACCUSA- 
TIONEM  repelledclatores.  El  cur  non  ?  Resp.  1,  Ob  gravilatem  personae  et 
momentum  atque  dignitatem  muneris  Wins,"  fyc. 

Now  it  is  perfectly  plain  from  this,  that  the  Apostle,  in  his  precept  to 
Timothy,  was  not  contemplating  the  point  of  evidence  upon  the  trial  at  all, 
hut  the  quite  distinct  question  of  the  caution  which  the  ecclesiastical  judge 
should  use  in  receiving  charges  against  his  presbyters.  For  surely  it  is 
manifest,  that  the  receiving  of  the  accusation  must  be  a  prior  and  distinct 
act  on  the  part  of  the  judge,  and  the  receiving  of  the  evidence  must  be  a 


278 

subsequent  and  very  different  matter.  The:  accusation  is  the  charge  ;  or, 
as  we  should  say  in  the  case  before  us,  the  Presentment  against  the  accused 
party.  This  accusation  St.  Paul  desires  Timothy  to  receive,  not  privately 
but  openly,  before  two  or  three  icitnesses,  who  might  consult  with  him  as  to 
the  importance  of  the  charge,  and  the  propriety  of  calling  on  the  party  to 
answer,  so  as  to  secure  the  careful  deliberation  necessary  before  the  actual 
commencement  of  any  judicial  proceedings  against  the  clergy,  in  whose 
trials  there  was  more  danger  of  strife  and  dissension  arising,  than  in  those 
of  other  men.  In  precise  accordance  with  this  most  natural  interpretation 
of  the  text,  our  own  Canon  provides,  that  no  accusation  shall  be  received 
against  a  Bishop$  unless  it  be  approved  and  presented  by  three  of  his 
brethren  ;  thus  fulfilling  to  the  letter,  in  the  very  first  step  towards  judicial 
action,  all  the  conditions  which  the  Apostle  requires.  Before  these  wit- 
nesses, our  presiding  Bishop  has  received  the  accusation  ;  and  this  was 
done  before  the  Respondent  was  cited  to  appear  ;  before  we  were  called 
upon  to  occupy  the  seat  of  justice,  before  the  party  was  bound  to  answer ; 
and  therefore,  before  it  could  certainly  be  known  whether  any  witnesses 
would  be  needed  on  the  trial.  Hence  the  witnesses  to  the  reception  of  the 
Presentment;  must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  witnesses  to  the  truth 
of  the  facts  on  which  the  Presentment  is  founded.  The  language  of  St. 
Paul  may  be  properly  applied  to  the  one,  but  has  no  relation  whatever  to 
the  other. 

Thus  much  may  suffice  for  this  supposed  authority.  But  I  must  go 
farther  and  say,  that  if  the  words  of  the  Apostle  had  been  as  express  as 
the  Respondent's  Counsel  were  willing  to  assume,  they  would  only  prove 
the  rule  laid  down  for  Timothy,  without  at  all  affecting  the  question  of  its 
obligation  on  the  Church  in  our  day.  For  the  distinction  is  universal- 
ly admitted  among  theologians,  between  the  doctrines  of  faith,  which 
are  unchangeable,  and  matters  of  temporary  discipline,  which  the  Church 
has  changed,  and  may  'change  at  any  time  for  sufficient  reason  ;  such 
as  the  kiss  of  charity,  the  love-feast,  or  agape,  the  order  of  deaconess, 
the  washing  of  feet,  the.  anointing  with  oil,  the  direction  which  obliged  wo- 
men to  wear  veils  in  their  public  assemblies,  the  rule  forbidding  men  to 
.wear  long  hair,  the  mode  of  worship  prescribed  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
other  matters  of  a  like  nature.  Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more  evident 
to  my  mind  than  the  conclusion,  that  the  objection  to  the  testimony,  founded 
on  the  supposition  that  St.  Paul  laid  down  a  permanent  law  for  the  Church, 
requiring  two  witnesses  to  prove  on  the  trial,  each  distinct  specification  of 
the  charge,  is  altogether  untenable. 

I  now  come  to  the  other  and  more  plausible  assertion,  that  the  rule  of 
evidence  which  demands  two  witnesses  for  each  fact,  is  a  part  of  the  canon 
law  retained  and  fully  established  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  therefore  binding  on  this  Court. 

Both  parts  of  this  complex  proposition  I  deny,  and  shall  endeavor  to  show, 
first,-  that  the  rule  for  which  the  Respondent's  Counsel  contend  is  not  always 
exacted  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  civil  and  canon  law  ;  and,  secondly, 
that  even  if  it  were,  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  we  ought  to  be  bound  by  it. 

The  general  rule  undoubtedly  is,  that  a  single  witness  is  not  sufficient  in 
the  civil  law,  nor  in  the  canon  law,  which  is  mainly  based  upon  it.  But 
this  rule  is  subject  to  a  variety  of  exceptions.  Thus,  for  example,  the 
learned  commentator,  Blackstone,  (Hi.  370,)  speaks  of  one  of  the  contrivan- 
ces for  evading,  the  strictness  of  its  application.  "  To  extricate  itself  out 


279 

of  the  absurdity  of  this  rule,"  saith  he,  "  the  modem  practice  of  the  civil 
law  courts  has  plunged  into  another.  For  as  they  do  not  allow  a  less  num. 
her  than  two  witnesses  to  the  plena  probatio,  they  call  the  testimony  of  one, 
though  never  so  clear  and  positive,  semi  plena  probalio  only,  on  which  no 
sentence  can  be  founded.  To  make  up,  therefore,  the  necessary  comple- 
ment of  witnesses  when  they  have  one  only  to  a  single  fact,  they  admit  the 
party  himself  (plaintiff  or  defendant)  to  be  examined  in  his  own  behalf,  arid 
administer  to  him  what  is  called  the  suppletory  oath,  and  if  his  evidence 
happen  to  be  in  his  own  favor,  this  immediately  converts  the  half  proof  into 
a  whole  one.  By  this  ingenious  device,  satisfying  at  once  the  forms  of  the 
Roman  law,  and  acknowledging  the  superior  reasonableness  of.  the  law  of 
England,  which  permits  one  witness  to  be  sufficient  where  no  more  are  to 
be  had ;  and,  to  avoid  all  temptations  to  perjury,  lays  it  down  as  an  invariable, 
rule  that  '  nemo  testis  esse  debet  inpropria  causa.'  ' 

Again,  there  have  been  many  decisions  in  the  English  superior  courts  re- 
quiring that  temporal  incidents,  coming  collaterally  into  question  in  the' 
spiritual  courts,  must  be  taken  as  proved,  if  the  evidence  be  such  as  would 
suffice  at  common  law ;  and  prohibitions  have  been  granted  accordingly, 
because  the  ecclesiastical  judges  would  not  allow  one  witness  to  be  suffi- 
cient :  (see  cases  of  Richardson  and  D&sborpugh,  Shotter  and  Friend,  Bree- 
don  and  Gill,  in  Burn's  Ecc.  Law,  ii.  240.) 

Again,  it  is  laid  down  as  a  clear  principle  of  the  civil  law,  from  which 
the  canonists  have  confessedly  taken  most  of  their  rules  of  evidence,  that  "a 
complete  proof  might  be  adduced  without  any  witness,  by  deeds  or  instru- 
ments, and  the  evidence  of  ONE  WITNESS  CORROBORATED  BY  CIRCUM'STANCES, 
or  circumstances  without  a  witness,  furnish  conclusive' proof  in  crimes  as 
well  as  civil  actions,"  (ib.  p.  239,  in  note  to  Tyrwhit's  edition.) 

And  again,  the  "  ordinary  rule  of  ecclesiastical  law  is  satisfied  by  re- 
ceiving one  witness  to  the  fact,  and  another  to  the  circumstances,"  (Hutchins 
v.  Denzi/oe,  1  Hagg.  Repp.  182.)  Thus,  in  a  suit  for  defamation  it  is  suffi- 
cient if  there  are  TWO  WITNESSES  WHO  SPEAK  SEPARATELY  TO  FACTS  OF  DEFA- 
MATION, COMMITTED  AT  DIFFERENT  TIMES,  (Crompton  v.  Butler,  1  Hagg.  Repp. 
463.)  So  in  treason,  viz.  the  case  of  the  Regicides,  Kelyng,  9,  long  before 
7  and  8  Will,  3  c.  3,  §  2,  "  it  was  resolved  by  the  judges,  .that  one  witness  to 
prove  one  act,  tending  to  compass  the  king's  death,  and  another  witness 
to  prove  another  act,  tending  to  the  same  end,  was  sufficient ;  and  that 
there  need  not  be  two  witnesses  to  prove  every  overt  act  tending  to  the  same 
treason,""  (ib.) 

Here,  then,  we  see  that  even  the  ecclesiastical  courts  themselves  allow 
one  witness  to  each  fact  belonging  to  the  same  charge,  and  that  the  same 
license  is  admitted  in  the  secular  courts  on  a  trial  for  treason  ;  that  circum- 
stances will  supply  the  place  of  one  witness  ;  that  temporal  incidents  aris- 
ing collaterally  must  be  allowed  to  be  proved  by  one  witness,  or  the  supe- 
rior courts  in  England  will  prohibit  the  ecclesiastical  judges  from  proceed- 
ing ;  nay,  that  these  judges,  by  the  ingenious  device  of  a  suppletory  oath 
taken  by  the  party,  allow  their  half-proof  by  a  single  witness  "to  be  convert- 
ed into  a  whole  one,  so  that  nothing  seems  wanting  to  prove  how  liberal  the 
Canon  law  is  in  its  admission  of  exceptions,  rior  how  little  the  Respondent's 
Counsel  would  gain  if  indeed  this  Court  could  resolve  to  bind  itself  to  such 
a  system.  For  certain  it  is  that  the  first  and  second  specifications  have  been 
proved,  and  the  seventh  and  eighth  specifications  still  more  largely,  by  tes- 
timony abundantly  sufficient  according  to  the  practical  administration  of  the 


280 

ecclesiastical  law  of  Europe,  while  the  case  of  Crompton  vs.  Butler,  above 
cited,  would  fully  sustain  the  amount  of  evidence  to  the  fifth  and  sixth  spe- 
cifications. Hence  the  case  before  us  stands  perfectly  clear  of  the  difficul- 
ty even  on  the  principles  of  the  Canon  law. 

But  although  the  question  seems  thus  easily  disposed  of,  so  far  as  the 
present  trial  is  concerned,  yet  I  should  think  myself  blameworthy,  if  I  suf- 
fered it  to  be  supposed  that  I  for  one  could  consent  to  be  governed  by  the 
maxims  of  the  civil  and  canon  law  in  preference  to  the  far  more  simple  and 
eligible  system  of  our  day  and  nation.  I  shall  therefore  go  on  to  show  that 
we  are  not,  and  ought  not  to  be  subject  to  it,  but  that  we  are,  and  ought  to  be, 
rather  subject  to  the  rules  established  and  recognised  in  our  own  age  and 
country,  since  thus  only  can  we  sustain  the  great  fundamental  principle 
already  proved  from  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  viz.,  that  the  maxims  of  truth 
and  righteousness,  and  the  administration  of  justice,  should  always,  as  far 
as  possible,  be  one  and  the  same,  whether  they  be  applied  to  priest  or  people. 

That  they  were  so  in  ancient  Israel,  I  have  shown  sufficiently,  and  it  can- 
not be  disputed  that  the  same  conformity  existed  in  the  Church  :  for  every- 
where in  her  history  we  find  the  utmost  respect  paid  to  the  common  law,  or 
the  law  of  custom,  without  the  slightest  desire  to  erect  a  different  system 
for  the  administration  of  justice  within  the  Church  herself,  until  the  despot- 
ism of  the  papacy,  after  the  eleventh  century,  forced  its  canon  law  among 
the  nations  of  Europe.  Before  that  period  it  was  only  in  those  parts  where 
the  civil  law  of  ancient  Rome  prevailed  that  the  judicial  system  of  tiie 
Church  was  accommodated  to  its  rules  and  forms  of  proceeding.  For,  as  the 
Gospel  became  extended  amongst  the  various  nations  which  had  overrun  the 
Roman  Empire,  the  Church  yielded  to  the  customs  of  each  age  and  people  ; 
and  while  she  endeavored  to  preserve  the  unity  of  faith  and  worship,  she 
justified  the  rule  of  expediency  in  all  those  inferior  things  which  belonged 
to  discipline,  and  were  therefore  admitted  to  be  alterable  in  their  nature. 

That  such  was  the  fact,  especially  in  the  ancient  Church  of  England,  is 
incontrovertible.  "  In  the  time  of  our  Saxon  ancestors,"  says  Black<tone, 
(Com.  iii.  62,)  "there  was  no  sort  of  distinction  between  the  lay  and  the  ec- 
clesiastical jurisdiction.  The  county  court  was  as  much  a  spiritual  as  a  tem- 
poral tribunal ;  the  rights  of  the  Church  were  ascertained  and  asserted  at 
the  same  time  and  "by  the  same  judges  as  the  rights  of  the  laity.  For  this  pur- 
pose the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  and  the  alderman,  or,  in  his  absence,  the 
sheriff  of  the  county,  used  to  sit  together  in  the  county  court,  and  had  there 
the  cognizance  of  all  causes,  as  well  ecclesiastical  as  civil ;  a  superior  def- 
erence being  paid  to  the  Bishop's  opinion  in  spiritual  matters,  and  to  that 
of  the  lay  judges  in  temporal." 

"  It  was  not  till  after  the  Norman  conquest,"  continues  this  distinguished 
author,  "  that  the  papal  doctrine  of  all  ecclesiastical  persons  and  causes 
being  solely  subject  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  was  received  in  England, 
when  William  I.  (whose  title  was  warmly  espoused  by  the  monasteries, 
and  by  the  foreign  clergy  whom  he  brought  over  in  shoals  from  France 
and  Italy)  was  at  length  prevailed  upon  to  establish  this  fatal  encroach- 
ment, and  separate  the  ecclesiastical  court  from  the  civil."  The  ecclesi- 
astics, governed  by  the  influence  of  the  pope,  took  their  rules  of  proceed- 
ing from  the  Decretals  of  Gratian,  which  were  modelled  after  the  newly 
revived  civil  law  in  the  following  century  ;  and  hence  the  temporal 
courts  followed  the  laws  of  England,  while  the  spiritual  courts  followed 
the  laws  of  Rome.  The  opinion  of  this  great  jurist,,  therefore,  is  positive 

|  ,^      «*^  .  .  *  >         ^     ^ 


281 

and  clear,  that  the  canon  law,  in  England  itself,  has  no  inherent  force,  but 
rests  merely  on  the  allowance  of  custom.  "  The  civil  and  canon  laws," 
saith  he,  "  considered  with  respect  to  any  intrinsic  obligation,  have  no 
force  or  authority  in  this  kingdom ;  they  are  no  more  binding  in  England, 
than,  our  laws  are  binding  at  Rome.  But  as  far  as  these  foreign  laws,  on  ac- 
count of  some  peculiar  propriety,  have  in  some  particular  cases,  and  in  some 
particular  courts,  been  introduced  and  allowed  by  our  laws,  so  far  they 
oblige,  and  no  farther,  their  authority  being  wholly  founded  on  that  per- 
mission and  adoption.  In  which  we  are  not  singular  in  our  notions  ;  for 
even  in  Holland,  where  the  imperial  law  is  much  cultivated,  arid  its  de- 
cisions pretty  generally  followed,  we  are  informed  by  Van  Leeuwen,  that 
it  receives  its  force  from  custom  and  the  consent  of  the  people,  either 
tacitly  or  expressly  given  ;  for  otherwise,  he  adds,  we  should  no  more 
be  bound  by  this  law,  than  by  that  of  the  Almains,  the  Franks,  the  Sax- 
ons, the  Goths,  the  Vandals,  and  other  of  the  ancient  nations.  Where- 
fore," continues  Blackstone,  "  in  all  points  in  which  the  different  systems 
depart  from  each  other,  the  law  of  the  land  takes  place  of  the  law  of 
Rome  ;  whether  ancient  or  modern,  imperial  or  pontifical." 

On  the  same  ground  does  the  learned  Boehmer  place  the  civil  and  canou 
laws  in  Germany,  viz.,  on  the  ground  of  usage,  consent,  and  custom. 
These  are  his  words  :  (Boehm.  Jus.  Eccl.  Protest.  T.  I.,  p.  96,  Lib.  1, 
Tit.  II.,  §  xxi.)  "  Quamvis  itaque  nulla  pMica  auctoritate  decrelum  (Sc. 
Gratiani)  corroboratum  sit  inde  tamen  minime  inferri  potest  illud  auihenticam 
decidendi  vim  non  habuisse.  Habuit  revera  eadem  fata  in  for o  qua  juri  Ro- 
mano obtigerunt.  Hoc  nulla  publica  lege  receptum  aut  approbation,  respectu 
Germanic  jus  plane  extraneum  imo  ita  comparatum  est  ut  in  plurimis  a  mori- 
bus  Germanize  abhorreat,  et  institutes  antiquis  e  diametro  adversetur.  Et  ta- 
men legistarum  usu,  applicatione  doctrina,  et  commendatione  adeo  receptum  est 
quamvis  in  subsidium,  ut  de  authentica  ejusdem  auctoritate  et  vi  decisiva  nemo 
amplius  dubitet.  Non  ergo  mirandum  quod  decretum  Gratiani  eadem  facili- 
tate, ipso  usu  et  PRAXI  per  decretistarum  artes  laborem  et  studia  tandem  recep- 
tum fuit." 

Here,  then,  we  behold  the  true  ground  of  all  the  authority  which  the  civil 
and  Canon  laws  can  justly  claim,  even  in  those  countries  where  they  have 
been  for  ages  in  full  vigor,  viz.,  the  ground  of  custom  and  usage.  But 
these  laws  have  never  been  adopted  by  us.  We  have  no  custom,  usage, 
nor  allowance,  which  can  be  pleaded  in  their  favor.  Our  system  of  Canon 
law  is  indeed  young  and  imperfect,  but  it  has,  thus  far,  plainly  been  model- 
led, not  upon  the  plan  of  those  Roman  formularies,  but  in  close  analogy 
with  the  clear  and  simple  jurisprudence  of  our  own  day  and  country.  Nay, 
the  very  Canon  under  which  we  are  called  together  in  our  judicial  charac- 
ter, can  only  be  understood  consistently  with  the  established  principles  of 
the  common  law.  For  the  description  of  the  presentment,  the  phraseology 
of  the  plea,  the  taking  of  the  testimony,  the  allowance  of  counsel,  the  call 
upon  the  accused  to  address  the  Court,  if  he  thinks  proper,  after  the  verdict, 
upon  the  issue,  and  before  the  sentence  is  declared, — all  this  shows  that  the 
framers  of  the  Canon  were  governed  by  the  common  law,  and  had  no  idea 
whatever  of  engrafting  upon  our  branch  of  the  Church  the  scions  of  the  old 
imperial  and  papal  system. 

Indeed,  I  might  well  ask  how  our  ecclesiastical  legislature — the  General 
Convention — could  be  supposed  to  intend  that  we  should  be  governed  by  a  code 
•with  which  there  is  not  a  man  among  us  familiar?  Who  was  there  in  either 

36 


of  the  Houses  that  had  ever  seen  a  trial  at  Doctor's  Commons,  or  knew  the 
mode  of  proceeding  in  these  ecclesiastical  courts?  How  could  we  have 
performed  our  painful  duty  at  all,  if  we  had  hot  been  guided  by  those  laws 
to  which  we  are  accustomed,  and  those  principles  which  we  understand  ? 
And  can  there  be  a  notion  more  extravagant  and  preposterous  than  this : 
that  the  legislature  of  the  Church  shall  be  supposed  to  have  intended  an 
absurdity.;  that  the  judges  of  this  Court  should  be  expected  to  administer 
justice  according  to  a  code  of  which  they  must  needs  be  profoundly  igno- 
rant ;  and  that  the  parties  should  have  the  -benefit  of  Counsel  who  could 
know  but  very  little,  if  any  thing,  of  the  laws  which  are  to  govern  the  case  ? 

How  plain,  then,  does  it  seem,  that  we  must  be  guided  by  the  simple 
analogy  of  the  common  law,  since  thus  only  the  whole  becomes  practicable, 
direct,  and  clear  ;  the  Legislature,  the  Court,  the  Counsel,  the  Church  at 
large,- and  the  surrounding  community,  all  enabled  to  comprehend  the  duty 
to  be  performed  without  difficulty  or-hesilation. 

Seeing,  therefore,  that  on  every  principle  of  sound  construction,  our  sys- 
tem of  American  Church-legislation  must  be  interpreted  by  the  analogy  of 
our  own  established  and  familiar  system  in  the  courts  of  common  law,  and 
not  by  the  canon  law,  which  has  been  derived  from  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  is  nowhere  in  existence  in  this  country,  except  in  the  hands  of  the  Ro- 
man priesthood,  I  have  only. to  remark,  briefly,  on  the  testimony  .given  in 
support  of  the  Presentment,  and  so  conclude  an  opinion  which  has  carried 
me  far  beyond  the  limits  which  I -anticipated. 

The  witnesses  who  have  come  forward  to  .prove  these  specifications,  are 
manifestly  influenced  by  no  resentment,  and  so  far  are  they  from  having 
volunteered  their  testimony,  that  they  appear  to  have  been  urged  to  a  ful- 
filment of  their  trying  duty  by  a  conscientious  sense  of  their  Christian  obli- 
gations, involving  no  small  share  of  endurance  and  self-denial.  Several  of 
them  sustained  the  most  minute  examination  and  cross-examination  for  more 
than  five  hours  together.  The  ladies  who  passed  through  this  painful  or- 
deal deserve  much  praise  for  the  gentle  firmness  and  strict  propriety  which 
marked  their  whole  deportment,  and  I  trust  they  will  reap  an  ample  reward 
in  the  approbation  of  that  Divine  Redeemer,  who  is  the  TRUTH  itself,  and  in 
the  favor  of  all  his  faithful  and  consistent  people. 

As  to  their  characters,  no  attempt  has  been  made  by  testimony  to  impeach 
them.  And  the  industrious  effort  to  contradict  them-  in  a  few  trifling  and 
unimportant  particulars,  did  not  seem,  in  my  mind,  to  affect  their  credit  in 
the  slightest  degree. 

Never,  in  the  course  of  many  years  experience,  have  I  seen  such  a  body 
of  witnesses.  Clergymen  of  unspotted  reputation,  their  wives  exemplary 
and  blameless,  communicants  active  and  zealous  of  good  works — such  are 
the  persons,  on  whose  solemn  oaths  we  have  decided  this  afflicting  issue. 
And  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  if  I  could  admit  a  single  doubt  of  the 
substantial  correctness  of  their  evidence,  I  should  be -compelled  to  abandon 
all  faith  in  human  testimony. 

Nothing  now  remains  of  this  most  painful  duty  but  the  pronouncing  of 
the  sentence,  which,  after  the  most  mature  reflection,  seems  due  to  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  and  the  character  of  her  clergy.  It  is  my  judgment, 
then,  that  the  Respondent  be  deposed  from  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  and  from 
all  the  functions  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Willingly  would  I  have  chosen 
the  lighter  sentence  of  indefinite  suspension,  if  that  would  have  relieved  the 
afflicted  Diocese  of  New  York  from  a  bond  which  can  no  longer  be  con- 


283 

tinued  with  auy  good  result  to  its  interests  or  welfare.  But  I  do  not  see  how 
the  Court,  in  passing  such  a  sentence,  could  avoid  the  risk  of  making  many 
suffer  for  the  sake  of  one,  thus  indirectly  punishing  the  innocent  along  with 
the  guilty. 

I  shall  add  no  comments  upon  the  melancholy  character  of  the  task, 
which,  in  the  order  of  Divine  Providence,  has  devolved  upon  us.  Alas ! 
who  can  contemplate  the  result  to  the  Respondent,  without  a  yearning  of 
spirit  and  a  deep  searching  of  heart,  to  which  no  ordinary  power  of  lan- 
guage can  give  utterance !  Who  can  think,  without  humiliation  and  sor- 
row, of  the  occasion  given  to  the  enemies  of  God  to  blaspheme,  "when  for 
the  first  time,  1  believe,  since  the  Reformation,  a  Bishop  has  been  tried  and- 
condemned  for  immorality ! 

Yet,  if  the  Church  has  cause  on  the  one  hand  to  mourn  over  the  grievous 
errors  which  have  called  for  this  correction,  she  has  cause  on  the  other  for 
fervent  gratitude  to  God,  that  vigor  and  energy  enough  are  found  within  her 
to  administer  it  without  respect  of  persons.  "  IT  MUST  SEEDS  BE  THAT  OF- 
FEXCES  COME."  There  never  was  an  age  exempt  from  them — there  never 
will  be  until  the  end  of  this  dispensation.  The  "  WO,."  however,  is  pro- 
nounced on  "  HIM  BY  WHOM  THE  OFFENCE  COMETH,"  and  not  upon  the  Church 
which  vindicates  the  honor  of  her  Divine  Head  and  the  character  of  his 
ministry.  The  gloom,  the  distress,  arid  the  agitation  of  this  solemn  chas- 
tisement, will  soon  pass  away.  But  the  purifying  effects  of  it,:  I  humbly 
trust,  will  be  deep  and  lasting.  For  henceforth  it  will  be  understood  that 
no  individual  among  us  stands  so  high  in  influence  or  station,  as  to  bid  de- 
fiance to  the  Church's  discipline ;  and  the  office  of  a  Bishop  will  be  more 
reverenced  than  ever,  when  it  is  known  that  it  is  only  an  instrument  of  good, 
without  the  possibility  of  it  becoming  a  refuge  for  evil. 

May  the  affecting  lesson  be  profitable  to  every  soul  among  us  !  May  he 
that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall !  May  the  spirit  of  godly 
fear  and  self-distrust,  and. watchfulness,  and  prayer,  abide  on  all  the  mia- 
isters  of  the  sanctuary !  And  may  our  Heavenly  Father,  the  Almighty 
dispenser  of  all  mercy,  and  truth,  and  grace,  and  consolation,  sanctify  this 
our  painful  work  of  duty  ;  and  direct  its  ultimate  results  to  the  glory  of 
His  holy  name,  to  the  edification  of  His  Church,  and  to  the  final  salvation 
and  felicity  of  our  offending  brother,  through  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  ! 

J.  H.  HOPKINS. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  KENTUCKY. 

THE  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Kentucky  is  in  favor  of  suspension — 

1.  Because  the  punishment  of  degradation  is  reserved  for  crime ;  and 
immorality,  not  crime,  is  here  alleged  and  proved. 

2.  Because  the  analogy  of  the  case  of  the  late  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania 
is.  so  nearly  similar,  that  no  sufficient  reason  appears  to  his  mind  for  vary- 
ing  the  amount  of  penalty  then  fixed  upon. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  NEW  JERSEY. 


DECLARATION  OF  OPINION 

IN  THE 

.    COURT  OF  BISHOPS, 

ASSEMBLED  FOR  THE  TRIAL  OF  THE  RT.  REV.  BENJAMIN  T.  ONDERDONK,  D.  D.,  BISHOP 

OF  NEW  YORK; 

Prepared,  and  intended  but  not  permitted  to  be  read,  before  the  decision  of  the 
question,  "  guilty,"  or  "  not  guilty  V 

I  AM  called  on  to  declare  whether,  in  my  opinion,  the  Respondent  in  this 
case  is  "  guilty"  or  not  "  guilty"  of  immorality  and  impurity,  in  the  following 
article  of  the  Presentment,  which  has  just  been  read,  viz.,  '"'That  the  said 
Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  June,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1837,  being  then  Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of 
New  York,  was  engaged  in  a  tour  of  official  duty,  and  was  proceeding  to 
the  town  of  Syracuse,  in  Onondaga  county,  in  said  Diocese  of  New  York, 
for  the  purpose,  among  other  matters,  of  ordaining  the  Rev.  Clement  M. 
Butler  to  the  Priesthood;  that  on  his  way  to,  and  near,  the  said  town  of  Syra- 
cuse, the  said  Clement  M.  Butler,  together  with  his  wife,  met  him  in  a 
carriage,  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  him,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onder- 
donk, to  the  said  town ;  that  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  entered  the 
said  carriage,  and  took  his  seat  on  the  back  seat  thereof  by  the  side  of  the 
said  lady ;  that  they  two  alone  occupied  that  seat,  the  said  Clement  M. 
Butler  and  a  person  driving  occupying  the  front  seat ;  that  thereupon,  after- 
wards, the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  impurely  and  unchastely  put  his 
arm  around  the  body  of  the  said  lady,  and  in  an  improper  and  unbecoming 
manner  pressed  the  said  lady  towards  him  ;  that  the  said  lady  endeavored 
to  repress  the  said  familiarities,  and  to  bring  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  to 
a  just  sense  of  his  duty  in  that  behalf;  that  the  night  came  on  before  the  saiu 
parties  reached  the  end  of  their  journey,  and  that  after  it  became  dark,  the 
said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  renewed  his  said  improper  conduct,  and  im- 
purely and  unchastely  did  pass  his  hand  down  and  along  the  person  and 
legs  of  the  said  lady,  and  did  otherwise  behave  towards  her  in  so  rude  and 
indecent  a  manner,  that  she,  the  said  wife  of  the  said  Clement  M.  Butler, 
was  obliged  to  claim  the  protection  of  her  husband,  and  thereupon  she  left 
her  seat  in  the  said  carriage,  and  rode  upon  the  front  seat  thereof  for  the 
rest  of  the  journey,  in  doing  which  she  was  obliged  to  sit  upon  her  husband's 
lap  ;  and  that  owing  to,  and  in  consequence  of,  the  said  conduct  of  the  said 
Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  the  said  lady  became  seriously  sick,  and  her 
health  was  so  much  affected  as  permanently  to  injure  her  constitution. 
All  which  said  actings  on  the  part  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  the 
said  Bishops  presenting  do  charge  as  being  in  violation  ofhis  duty  as  Bishop, 
and  contrary  to  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  great  scan- 
dal of  the  Church  of  Christ." 


I  feel  that  the  "  opinion"  I  am  thus  called  to  give,  is  the  most  important  I 
have  ever  given ;  and  I  must  be  allowed  to  enter  at  some  length  into  the 
grounds  on  which  I  give  it.  It  is  a  most  extraordinary  case.  It  is  as  im- 
portant  as  it  is  extraordinary. 

The  Respondent  stands  before  us  in  his  native  place.  .  For  more  than 
fifty  years  he  has  resided  in  this  city ;  the  scene  of  his  education,  an,d  the 
chief  seat  of  his  labors,  as  it  is  the  home  of  his  birth.  His  childhood  and 
his  youth  were  singular  in  purity  and  piety.  For  almost  three  and  thirty 
years  he  has  exercised  the  ministry  of  Christ.  For  twenty  years  he  was 
connected  with  the  largest  parish  in  our  whole  communion;  assiduous  in 
all  the  duties,  exemplary  in  all  the  relations  of  his  office.  A  most  devoted 
pastor  ;  faithful  and  capable,  quite  to  a  proverb,  in  what  is  called  "  the  bu- 
siness of  the  Church,"  diocesan  and  general;  the  kind,  and  careful,  and 
laborious  teacher  of  young  men  in  preparation  for  the  ministry  ;  directing 
in  their  theological  training  a  multitude  of  our  most  useful  ministers,  and 
several  of  the  Bishops.  From  his  earliest  connection  with  the  ministry,  he 
enjoyed  the  fullest  confidence  of  that  most  singular  discerner  of  the  charac- 
ters of  men,  the  honored  HOBART  ;  and  from  the  nearest  place  to  him,  as 
counsellor  and  fellow-helper  in  the  cares  and  labors  of  his  office,  was 
called  to  be  his  successor  in  the  apostleship.  Before  his  elevation  to  that 
office,  and  for  some  years  afterwards,  it  may  be  said,  without  the  fear  of 
contradiction,  that  never  any  word  was  heard  to  call  in  question  his  minis- 
terial, his  religious,  or  his  moral  character;  while  no  man  can  be  found  to 
say,  that  he  has  ever  seen  a  more  entire  and  unreserved  devotion  of  soul 
and  body  to  the  Church.  Of  his  administration  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
York,  before  and  after  its  division,  the  record  is  before  us  all,  in  the  contin- 
ual, unexampled  increase  and  prosperity  which  God  has  granted  to  the 
prayers  and  labors  of  His  servant.  A  blessing  much  enhanced,  and  rendered 
more  significant  by  this,  that  in  two  successive  Conventions  of  the  Diocese, 
the  last  which  have  been  held,  when  his  Church  principles,  and  his  policy 
as  Bishop,  were  made  the  subject  of  the  freest  discussion,  and  most  direct 
'and  vigorous  opposition,  he  was  sustained  by  overwhelming  majorities  in 
both  of  the  two  orders :  and  not  a  man  among  two  hundred  clergymen,  or 
among  the  lay  representatives  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-four  congregations, 
to  hint  at  the  preferment  of  a  single  charge  against  him.'  That  three  short 
months  should  have  produced  a  change  so  great  and  so  disastrous  in  the  po- 
sition of  the  Respondent,  is  among  the  aspects  of  the  case  which  make  ft 
extraordinary,  to  the  very  borders  of  romance.  Is  it  not  extraordinary,  and 
well  nigh  without  example,  that  such  a  childhood,  such  a  youth,  and  such 
a  manhood,  should  justly  lead  to  such  a  posture  in  old  age?  Is  it  not  extraor- 
dinary that,  if  there  be  just  grounds,  and  were,  and  they  notorious  (as  it  is 
said)  as  long  ago  as  1838,  that  in  neither  of  these  two  Conventions, — I  do  not 
say  the  canonical  minority  in  the  two  orders;  I  do  not  say  an  aggregate 
majority  of  the  whole  body  ;  I  do  not  even  say  a  responsible  though  small 
minority; — but -I  do  .say,  one  single  man  of  clergymen  or  laymen,  could  be 
found  to  move  for  an  investigation,  in  redemption  of  the  honor  of  the  Church  ? 
•This  surely  is  a  case  most  extraordinary.  And  as  important  as  it  is 
extraordinary.  I  do  not  mean,  immense  as  that  must  be,  in  its  bearings  on 
the  Respondent  and  his  Diocese  alone.  I  mean  as  it  affects,  and  must 
affect,  for  ever,  our  whole  Church  ;  its  mutual  intercourse,  its  present  in- 
terests, its  future  influence,  its  history,  its  name,  and  fame.  It  is  the  first 
carrying  out  of  the  canonical  provision  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop.  The 


weight  and  value  of  the  Church's  discipline  hereafter,  in  all  its  branches, 
and  in  all  its  bearings,  will  much  depend  on  the  decision  of  this  case  :  that, 
as  we  promised  at  our  consecration  that  we  would  be,  so  we  now  approve 
ourselves  to  be,  "  so  merciful  that  we  be  not  too  "remiss ;  so  minister  dis- 
cipline that  we  forget  not  mercy." 

Is  the  Respondent  "  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,"  as 
stated  in  the  "  article"  now  before' us  ?  To  say  that  he  is  guilty  of  present 
"immorality  and  impurity"  by  reason  of  an  act  committed,  if  committed 
more  than  seven  years  ago,  is  obviously  absurd.  '"Immorality,"  in  John- 
son's definition  of  it,  is  "  want  of  virtue — contrariety  to  virtue."  "  Impu- 
rity" is  a  quality  or  habit  of  the  mind  or  heart.  To  hold  that -he -who  ever 
has  been  tainted  by  the  passage  of  an  impure  thought,  is  guilty  of  it  now, 
would  be  to  shut  us  all  out  from  the  sight  of  God.  Needful  for  all  of  us  that 
prayer  of  David,  in  his  penitence,  "  Oh,  remember  not  the  sins  and  offences 
of  my  youth!"  It -never  can  be  held  that  if  this  charge  were  proved  to 
the  full,  it  would  establish  "  immorality  and  impurity,"  at  present.  I  make 
this  remark  once  for  all,  as  applying,  in  •  proportion  to  its  date,  to  every 
charge  in  the  Presentment :  and  I  .put  it  to  the  heart  of  every  Bishop  to 
say  now,  whether,  if  all  of  them  should  be  established,  he  could  sustain, 
against  the  admitted  silence  of  two  years  and  a  half,  the  expression  of  the 
Presentment,  "  being  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity;"  that  is  to  say, 
now  addicted  to  immoral  or  impure  habits. ; 

But  is  the  charge,  as  it  now  stands,  established  ?  In  setting  forth  a 
charge  so.  old  in  date,  the  Presentment  lays  itself  under  severe  responsibili- 
ties, as  to  the  nature  of  the  evidence  required  for  its  establishment.  The 
rule  is  granted  on  all  handi,  as  founded,  not  on  any  law,  but  on  the  just 
allowance  for  infirmity  of  men,  in  failure  of  memory,  in  the  death  or  ab- 
sence of  material  witnesses,  in  bar  of  frivolous,  vexatious,  or  vindictive 
prosecutions,  that,  in  such  cases,  the  clearest  proof  shall  be  required  for 
every- allegation,-  while  general  explanations  are  to  be  allowed  in  the  de- 
fence. This  is  the  voice  of  human  nature,  older  than  all  statutes,  and  more 
authoritative  than  any.  It  is- incorporated  in  every  statute  book.  It  isl 
adopted,  without  statute,  in  the  courts  of  equity.  It  is  of  obvious  and  uni- 
versal obligation.  .It  especially  applies,  in.  the  latter,  portion  of  it,  that 
general  explanations  are  to  be  allowed  in  the  defence,  to  cases  such  as  this, 
where  the  immoral  acts  alleged  are  of  a  nature  seldom  susceptible  of  a 
direct  rebuttal.  The- Presentment,  in  taking  in  matters  of  allegation  so  re- 
mote in  time,  is  to  be  held,  therefore,  to  the  adduction  of  the  clearest  and 
the  most  abundant  proof. 

Is  the  specification  of  "  immorality  and  impurity,"  as  it  stands  in  arti- 
cle I.  of  the  Presentment,  so  sustained  ?  It  is  "  an  accusation  against  an 
elder."  It  is  an  accusation  made  in  a  Church  Court.  It  is  held,  therefore, 
in  strictest  terms,  to  the  Church  rule.  Now,  what  is.  that?  Where  shall 
we  look  for  it  ?  To  holy  Scripture,  first.  If  God  has  spoken,  man  must  not 
object  or  qualify.  I  turn  then  to  the  three  Epistles,  which  have  been  always 
held  as  the  inspired  directory  of  order  arid  of  discipline  for  the  whole  Church, 
in  every  age.  I  find  the  apostle  Paul,  writing  by  inspiration  .of  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  giving  express  directions  to  the  first  Ephesian. Bishop,  (1  Tim.  v.  19,) 
"Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation  but  before  two  or  three  witness- 
es ;."  clearly  intending,  as  the  original,  and  all  received  expositors  will  show/* 

*  I  invite  particular  attention  to  the  .authorities  which  follow.  I  begin  with 
POOLE,  who,  in  his  exposition  .of  this  text,  condenses  and  combines  the  critical 


287. 

on  the  authority  of"  two  or  three  witnesses."  I  go  not  back  for  any  confirm*- 
ation  of  this  rule  to  the  Old  Testament.  It  needs  no  confirmation.  The 
apostle  had  the  mind  of  Christ.  What  .he  esjoins  is  to  us  an  injunction 
from  the  Lord  our  God.  We  are  not  to  object  to  it  from  any  consideration 
of  consequences.  We  are  not  to-  qualify  it  hy  any  consideration  of  conve- 
nience. It  is,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  He  saith  it  who  'knows  all  possible 

authority  of  Erasmus,  Beza,  Senltetus,  Tremellius,  Molinaeus,  Illyricus,1  Pag- 
ninus,  Castalio,  Vorstius,  Piscator,  Danaeus,  Pricaeus,  Hammond,  and  Grotius, 
relying  chiefly  on  the  last.  "  Against  an  elder,"  (either,  1,  in  age  ;  or  more  prop- 
erly, 2,  in  honor  or  dignity,  as  the  context  shows,)  "  receive  not  an  accusation" 
(or  ecclesiastical  charge,)  "except  under  two,"  &c.  [In  the  original,  he  says  (lit- 
erally, unless,  if  not)  there  is  a  pleonasm,  or  double  negation  ;  which,  in  Greek,  as 
scholars  know,  makes  the  denial  mote  intense.]  A  ruler  seems  to  be  instructed 
here,  called  by  eminence,  an  overseer,  or  Bishop.  For  it  belonged  to  such  to 
regulate  the  conduct  of  elders.  Timothy,  at  that  time,  presided  over  the  elders 
at  Ephesus.  It  may  be  asked,  What  need  of  this  new  rule  concerning  elders, 
when  of  .every  accusation  it  is  written,  as  in  Deuteronomy  xvii.  6,  "  At  the  mouth 
of  two  witnesses,  or  three  witnesses,"  &c.  ?  Prom  this  consideration  some  have 
thought  the  text  should  be  erased,  'as  being  superfluous.  But  the  bringing  of  an 
accusation  is  one  thing,  and  the  trial  of  the  accused,  whether  the  sentence  of  the 
judge  acquit  him,  or  condemn  him,  is  another.  By  the  law  of  Moses,  no  one 
could  be  condemned  for  any  crime,  but  on  the  testimony  of  at  least  two  witnesses.- 
["  One  witness  shall  not  rise  up  against  a  man  for  any  iniquity,  or  for  any  sin,  in 
any  sin  that  he  sinneth :  at  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses,,  or  at  the  mouth  of  three 
witnesses,  shall  the  matter  be  established/'  Deut.  xix.  15.]  One  of  the  com- 
mon people,  however,  might  be  arrested,  'and  an  investigation  of  his  case  com- 
menced, on  the  testimony  of  one  .witness,  not  being  an  infamous  person.  It  was 
not  .so,  however,  with  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  to  whom  an  elder  is  here  made 
equal.  In  Jewish  proceedings  at  law,  there  were  these  three  stages.  The  ad- 
mission of  the  charge,  when  .the  judge  does  not  dismiss  the  complaint ;  its  con- 
firmation, by  the  oath  of  the  .complainant ;  and  its  trial,  when  the  proofs  and 
arguments  on  either  side  are  brought.  Observe,  the  apostle  does  not  say  con- 
demn not ;  but  receive  not  an  accusation,  (except  on  the  authority  of  two  or  three 
witnesses.)  Repel  informers.  And  why  so]  1.  By  reason  of  his  weight  of 
character,  and  of  the  importance  and  dignity  of  his  office.  He  is  not  to  be  dis- 
credited, therefore,  without  great  cause  ;  for  his  discredit  is  joined  with  the  scan- 
dal of  the  whole  Church.  It  concerns  the  whole  Church,  therefore,  that  his  repu- 
tation be  not  easily  impaired.  2.  Because  the  judgment  of  the  whole  people  in  his 
behalf,  at  his  election,  readily  outweigh*  a  single  witness.  3.  Because  the  people 
are  severe  towards  those  that  are  set  over  them,  and  feed  them,  and  habitually 
exaggerate  their  failings.  For  such  is  the  malignant  temper  of  the  human  mind, 
that  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  reprove  the  faults  of  others,  are  much  exposed  to 
their  ill-will.  .  In  the  case  of  old  men,  there  is  this  farther  consideration,  .that  evil 
should  not  lightly-  be  believed  of  one-  advanced  in  years,  whose  past  life  is  his 
protection,  and  his  very  name  a  mark  of  dignity.  In  loco. 

HAMMOND,  discussing,  in  his  full  and  learned  way,  the  three  gradations  in  a 
Jewish  suit  at  law,  concludes  as  follows :  "  The  first  of  these  only  it  is  that  be- 
longs to  this  place,  the  admission  of  the  complaint,  or  accusation,  which,  against 
a  presbyter,  or  governor,  of  the  Church,  is  not  allowed  under  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses, in  respect  of  the  gravity  of  his  person,  and  weight  of  his  office  or  calling, 
who  must  not  be  defamed,  (as  the  being  brought  into  the  Court  is  a  kind  of  defa- 
mation,) if  there  be  not  great  cause  for  it."  In  loco. 

WHITBV,  first  rendering  the  text,  "  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation 
but  upon  the  *  testimony  of  two  or  three  witnesses,"  proceeds  to  say  :  "Whereas 
the  law  had  taken  care  that  no  man  should  be  condemne'd,bul  by  the  mouth  of  two 
or  three  witnesses,  the  Apostle,  knowing  how  much  the  Church  would  suffer  by  the 
rash  accusation  of  her  governors,  bishops,  and  presbyters,  seems  to  rise  higher, 


results,  and  never  is  unmindful,  in  one  commandment  or  one  ordinance,  of 
the  infirmities  of  his  poor  human  creatures.  I  take  the  apostolical  injunc- 
tion, therefore,  as  it  stands,  and  I  apply  it  literally.  It  is  not  true 
that  he  intended  merely  to  enjoin  the  application  to  an  elder,  of  a 
rule  which  held  among  the  Jews  for  every  man's  protection;  nor  that 
he  meant  to  enforce  through  Timothy,  the  Jewish  usage  on  this  subject. 

not  suffering  an  accusation  to  be  admitted  against  them,  without  the  like  number 
of  witnesses."  In  loco. 

BLOOMFIELD,  in  loco,  refers  to  Whitby,  and  translates  "  before,"  under  the  testi- 
mony of"t\vo  or  three  witnesses." 

MACKNIGHT,  paraphrasing  the  text  thus — "  Against  an  elder,  whether  he  be  a 
bishop,  a  president,  or  a  deacon,  receive  not  an  accusation,  unless  it  is  offered  to 
be  proved  by  two  or  three  credible  -witnesses"  says,  in  his  note,  "  this,"  ("  by  two 
or  three  witnesses,")  "  I  think,  is  the  proper  translation  of  the  clause.  For  I  see 
no  reason  why  an  accusation  against  an  elder  should  not  be  received,  unless  in  the 
presence  of  witnesses.  But  I  see  a  good  reason  for  not  receiving  such  an  accu- 
sation, unless  it  is  offered  to  be provedhy  a  sufficient  number  of  credible  witnesses. 
This  method  of  proceeding  puts  a  stop  to  groundless  accusations  of  the  ministers 
of  religion."  In  loco. 

THOMAS  SCOTT.  "  The  character  of  an  elder  or  pastor  was  of  very  great  im- 
portance :  it  would  therefore  be  improper  not  only  to  condemn  him,  but  even  l  to 
receive  an  accusation  against''  him,  except  it  was  attested  by  two  or  three  credi- 
ble witnesses.  Many  might  be  disposed  to  revile  those  faithful  ministers,  whose 
doctrine  and  reproofs  had  offended  them ;  and  indeed,  the  grand  enmity  of  '  the 
accuser  of  the  brethren,'  and  of  all  his  servants,  would  be  excited  against  them. 
It  was  therefore  highly  reasonable  that  no  accusation,  tending  to  bring  the  con- 
duct of  an  elder  to  a  public  investigation,  and  thus  to  impeach  or  endanger  his 
character,  should  be  regarded,  if  supported  only  by  one  solitary  testimony,  which 
his  denial  of  the  crime  must  at  least  counterbalance."  In  loco. 

BURKITT  sustains  the  same  views,  "  because  it  is  the  interest  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  that  the  reputation  of  its  ministers  should  be  supported  ;  and  because  pre- 
judiced persons  will  be  ready  to  accuse  without  reason."  In  loco. 

DODDRIDGE,  speaking,  in  loco,  of  the  elders  of  the  Church,  says — "  Great  care 
should  also  be  taken  that  their  reputation,  on  which  their  usefulness  will  so  much 
depend,  may  not  be  lightly  impeached.  Accordingly,  do  not  receive  an  accusation 
against  an  elder,  unless  on  the  testimony  of  two  or  three  credible  witnesses,  for  the 
single  report  of  any  one  person  is  not  material  enough  to  set  against  the  word  of 
an  elder  maintaining  his  own  innocence." 

ADA:.:  CL..:U:S.  "  Be  very  cautious  of  receiving  evil  reports  against  those  whose 
business  it  is  to  preach  to  others,  and  correct  their  vices.  Do  not  consider  an  el- 
der as  guilty  of  any  alleged  crime,  unless  it  be  proved  by  two  or  three  witnesses. 
This  the  law  of  Moses  required  in  respect  to  all.  Among  the  Romans,  a  plebeian 
might  be  condemned  on  the  deposition  of  one  credible  witness  ;  but  it  required  two 
to  convict  a  senator.  The  reason  of  this  difference  is  evident ;  those  whose  bn- 
siness  it  is  to  -correct  others,  will  usually  have  many  enemies  :  great  caution 
should  therefore  be  used  in  admitting  accusations  against  such  persons."  In 
loco. 

MATTHEW  HENRY.  "  Here  is  the  Scripture  method  of  proceeding  against  an 
elder,  when  accused  of  any  crime.  Observe,  1.  There  must  be  an  accusation  ;  it 
must  not  be  a  flying,  uncertain  report ;  but  an  accusation,  containing  a  certain 
charge,  must  be  drawn  up.  Further,  he  is  not  to  be  proceeded  against  by  way  of 
inquiry  :  this  is  according  to  the  modern  practice  of  the  Inquisition,  which  draws 
up  articles  for  men  to  purge  themselves  of  such  crimes,  or  else  to  accuse  them- 
selves ;  but,  according  to  the  advice  of  St.  Paul,  there  must  be*  an  accusation 
brought  against  an  elder.  2.  This  accusation  is  not  to  be  received  unless  sup- 
ported by  two  or  three  credible  witnesses  ;  and  the  accusation  must  be  received 
before  them,  that  is,  the  accused  must  have  the  accusers  face  to  face,  because  the 


289 

It  was  to  the  Bishop  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus  that  he  was  giving  direc- 
tion, for  the  use  and  government  of  Greeks,  and  not  of  Jews;  and  so  of  the 
whole  Church,  in  every  age,  through  all  the  world ;  and  it  cornea  in,  you 
will  observe,  in  the  midst  of  other  precepts,  touching  elders,  which  are  most 
clearly  of  a  catholic  and  abiding  application.  "  Let  the  elders  that  rule 
well,  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor,"  1  Timothy  v.  17.  "  Against 
an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses,"  19. 
"  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  22.  I  put  myself,  then,  and  I  must  put 
myself  in  this,  and  every  similar  case,  upon  the  literal  sense  of  the  Apostle's 
rule.  "  I  cannot  go  beyond  the  word  of  the  Lord  my  God  to  do  less  or.  more." 
I  bound  myself  to  this  when  I  was  consecrated,  sayirtg,  in  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, "  Witt  you  diligently  exercise  such  discipline  as  by  the  authority  of 
God's  word,  and  by  the  order  of  this  Church,  is  committed  to-yoit  ?"  "I  will 
so  do  by  the  help  of  God."  1  find  nothing  in  this  apostolic  rule  of  one  wit» 
ness,  and  circumstances  amounting  to  another ;  an  interpretation  of  it 
strangely  unavailing  in  the  present  case,  where  circumstances  uniformly 
make  against  the  testimony  of  the  single  witness  by  which  any  accusation 
in  the  whole  Presentment  is  attempted  to  be  sustained.  All  that  I  read  is, 
"  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation," — receive  not  any  accusation, 
— "  but  before,  or  under,  or  by,  or  on  the  authority,  or  upon  the  testimony 
of  two  or  three  witnesses."  That  it  was  so  understood  in  the  early  ages  of 
the  Church,  I  prove  by  the  seventy-fifth  of  the  Apostolic  Canons  :  "  An  here- 
tic is  not  to  be  received  as  witness  against  a  Bishop,  neither  only  one  believer  ; 
for  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  throe  witnesses,  every  word  shall  be  established." 
I  appeal  to  the  established  rule  of  canon  law,  as  bringing  down  with  it  this 

reputation  of  a  minister  is,  in  a  particular  manner,  a  tender  thing;  and  therefore, 
before  any  thing  be  done  in  the  least  to  blemish  that  reputation,  great  care  must 
be  taken  that  the  thing  alleged  against  him  be  well  proved,  that  he  be  not  re- 
proached upon  an  uncertain  surmise."  In  loco. 

GIRDLESTONE.  "  It  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  the  clergy,  instead  of  being  held 
in  honor  of  their  brethren,  to  be  the  marked  objects  of  censure,  slander,  and  in- 
dignity. So  apt  are  men  to  fancy  that  any  fault  which  they  can  find  or  feign  in  their 
teachers,  may  serve  for  excuse  of  like  failings  in  themselves.  So  unreasonably 
do  they  expect  that  perfection  in  their  fellow-creatures,  which  is  to  be  met  with 
only  in  our  one  great  High  Priest,  eternal  in  the  heavens.  Well  might  each  pri- 
vate Christian  herein  adopt  the  rule,  which  is  prescribed  to  Timothy  concerning' 
an  elder,  to  receive  no  accusation  against  such,  '  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses.' 
Hush,  let  us  say  to  those  who  are  finding  fault  with  our  pastor,  I  dare  not 
so  much  as  listen  to  your  accusation,  much  less  can  I  listen  with  satisfaction.  If 
what  you  say  be  true,  it  could  do  me  no  good  to  hear  it.  Take  the  charge  to  them 
which  are  in  authority.  Take  with  you  at  least  two  or  three  witnesses,  and  lay 
the  matter  before  the  rulers  of  the  Church.  It  is  their  duty  to  inquire.  It  is  their 
duty,  and  I  trust  they  will  discharge  it  faithfully ;  it  is  their  duty  to  rebuke  before 
all  the  ministers,  who  sin,  'that  others  also  may  fear.'  I  trust  that  they  will  not 
forget  the  Apostle's  solemn  charge,  to  observe  these  things,  '  without  .preferring 
one  before  another,  doing  nothing  by  partiality.'  However  much  inconvenience 
it  may  cost  us,  let  us  not  refrain  in  such  a  case  from  offering  them  our  testimony 
as  to  the  things  we  know.  This  may  help  to  justice.  And  whether  it  substan- 
tiate innocence,  or  tend  to  the  removal  of  the  guilty,  it  will  promote  the  glory  of 
Christ.  But  let  us,  at  the  same  time,  be  continually  on  the  watch  that  we  neither 
revile,  nor  suffer  others  in  our  presence  to  revile,  our  ministers  in  private.  Such 
censure  is  more  easy,  and  to  our  selfish  nature  more  agreeable,  than  a  public  ac- 
cusation. But  it  is  at  once  cruel  and  unjust  to  them,  hurtful  to  ourselves,  and 
detrimental  to  the  honor  of  our  Lord.''  In  loco. 

37 


ancient  precept ;  citing  from  Bishop  Gibson's  master  work,  "  In  the  spiritual 
courts  they  admit  no  proof  but  by  tioo  witnesses  at  least." — Codex  Juris 
Ecclesiasiici  Angttcani,  1011.  I  claim'  the  practice  of  the  civil  law,  in 
this  behalf,  not  as  a  rule,  but  as  a  witness;  and  I  reject  the  claim  that  the 
common  law  must  be  allowed  to  limit  the  Apostle,  on  the  same  ground  that 
the  binding  force  of  the  civil  law,  as  taw,  would  be  rejected;  that  this 
Church  has  not  enacted  its  adoption.  On  the  simple,  but  to  me,  sufficient 
word  of 'the.  Apostle,  I  require  two  witnesses  for  the  support  of  this,  and  (to 
save  time,  I  add3)  of  every  other  "accusation"  included  in  the  Present- 
ment rtow  before  us.  And,  as  there  is  to  that  which  constitutes  the  "  accu- 
.sation,"  the  implication  of  criminality,  no"  other  than  the  single  testimony  of 
Mrs.  Butler- — her  husband  saying  expressly  of  all  that  he  saw,  "  I  did  not 
think  it  of  such  a  character  as  to  calf  for -notice  at  the  time,"— I  am  bound 
by  my  consecration  vow  to  say,  it  is  not.proved. 

I  am  aware  that  it  is  said,  the  "accusation"  is  the  whole  Presentment, 
and  this  but  one  of  several  specifications  under  it.  I  ask,  if  this  were  the 
only  article,  whether  it  would  not  be  "  ah  accusation  ?"  I  ask,  if  every 
specification  or  "article,"  is  not,"  in  Kke  manner,  "an  accusation?"  and 
then,  I  ask,  is  not  the  Ap*ostle's  rule,  the  Church's  rule,  God's  rule,  this 
Court's  rule  ;  "  against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation," — any  accusa- 
tion— bat  on  the  testimony  of  "  two  or  three  witnesses?" 

I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  said. this  rule  was  for  the  government. of  the 
Presenting  Bishops'.  It  was  for  them  to  say  whether  every  "  article"  or  "  ac- 
cusation"' was  sufficiently  sustained.  That  talcing  this  for  granted,  it  comes 
before  us  now  endorsed  with  their  three'  names,  and  so  maintained  by  full 
«' three  witnesses."  But  this  would  prove  too  much,  since  it  would  substi- 
tute their  signatures  for  evidence,  and  make  presentment  condemnation.  I 
grant  that  it  was  for  them  to  apply  the  Apostle's  rule.  I  wish  they  had  done 
so.  But  if  they  had.  if  they  had. sent,  to  us  with  every  "article"  or  "  ac- 
cusation" the  Scriptural  full  measure,  "  three  witnesses,"  it  would,  still  have 
remained  for  us  to  try  their  testimony.  I  remind  the  Court,  that  at  an  early 
stage  in  these  proceedings,  the  question- was  raised,  what  should  be  the  number 
of  witnesses  required  for  any  charge,  and  its  decision  laid  over  for  a  subse- 
quent consideration ;  and  I  insist,  that  what  was  binding  as  the  Scriptural  rule 
on  tha  Presenting  Bishops,  in  receiving  any  "  accusation"  is  binding  a  fortiori 
on  this  Court,  in  trying  every  4i  accusation"  included  by.  them  in  this  Pre^ 
sentment. 

I  am  aware  of  what  is  called  the  argument  by  cumulation  ;  that  an  un- 
proved charge  is  made  to  lend  its  color  .to  another  unproved  charge,  so  that 
one  proved  charge  is  made  up  pf  the  two.  Against  this  view,  I  'hold,  that, 
of  any  number  of  specifications  under  a  charge,  all  must  be  proved  as  fully 
as  if  there  were  but  one.  I  hold  that  no  number  of  specifications,  however 
great,  if -none  of  them  be  fully  proved,  sustain  a  charge.  .  It  might  as  well 
be  claimed,  that,  from  any  series  of  mere  minus  quantities,  plus  ever  could 
result.  I  cite  on  this  subject  the  sufficient  authority  of  StarkieV well-known 
work  071  Evidence.  "  The  circumstances  from  which  the  conclusion  is  drawn 
should  be  fully  established.  If  the  basis  be  unsound,  the  superstructure 
cannot  be  secure.  The  party  upon  whom  the  burden  of  proof  Crests,  is 
bound  to  prove  every  .single,  circumstance  which  is  essential  to  the  conclu- 
sion, in  the  same  manner,-and.to  the  same  extent,  as  if  the  whole,  issue  had 
rested  upon  the  proof  of  eaoh  individual  and  essential  circumstance." — r 
American  Edition,  I.  607, 


.*•;    ' 


But -I  am  not  disposed  to  leave  the  matter  even  thus.  Suppose  the  ob- 
jection waived  to  the  character  and  competency  of  the  evidence.-  Is  jft 
sufficient,  then,  to  establish  the  acts  charged  in  this  "  article,"  and  to  estab; 
Hsh  them  as  acts  of  immorality  and  impurity  :  and  does  it  follow,  that  to 
deny  these  conclusions  is  to  charge  the  witness  as  a  perjured  person  ?  Im- 
morality and  impurity,  as  qualities  or  habits,  ave  evil  from  their  seeking  evil 
ends  ;  and  acts  are  either  good  or  bad,  in  morals,  according  to  their  aim. 
It  is  true  that  we  infer  the  intention  from  the  act ;  but  it  is  also  true,  that 
where -the  intention  of  evil  is  not  manifest,  the  acts  of  men  are  entitled  to 
any  sufficient  explanation  of  them', .which  involves  no  evil  purpose.  In  the 
first  place,  then,  is  there  not  great  exposure  to  over-estimation  of  the  facts 
alleged,  in  the  impression  with  which  the  witness  started  on  the  journey, 
that  the  Respondent  was  not  quite  himself?  •  I  do  not  at  all  allow  that  her 
impression  was  correct ;  but  she,  it  seems,-  adopted  it,  and  began  Jo  be  sus- 
picious of  it,  from  the  moment  of  their  meeting  at  the  house  of.  Mr.  Munn. 
Should  it  not  be  thought  of;  in  the  consideration  of  her  testimony,  as  giving 
to  her  estimate  of  what  occurred,  an  exaggerated  and  probably  a  distorted 
character  ?  Should  it  not  be  taken  in-eonnec.tion  with  all  she  has  sajd,  and 
all  she  thought,  to  mitigate  and  correct  it  ?  And  now,  as  to  the.  intention 
of  evil  in  the  Respondent,  what  could  it  have  been?  What  could. have 
originated — what  could  have  encouraged  it  ?  Where  was  the  opportunity  ? 
What  was  to  come  of  it  1  In  this  case;  (and,  it  may  as  well  be  stated  here,  in 
every  case  alleged,)  ulterior  evil  seems  impracticable.  The  actions  charged, 
\vere  passages  that  could  lead  to  nothing.  In  carriages — in  the  presence 
or  immediate  reach  of  husbands,  or  near  relations,  or  of  a  Christian  Minis- 
ter— or  in  a  room  with  doors  wide  open — can  any  thing  be  thought  of  more 
improbable  ?  I  do  not  reason  from  the  office,  or  supposed  character,  of  the 
Respondent.  I  rather  reason  from  the  very  nature  of  things.  No,  or  but 
little  previous  acquaintance,  (except  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Butler,  who  had 
been  a  child  upon  his  knee) — no  expectation  of  future  intercourse— no  at- 
tempt to  renew  it — with  no  insidious  preparation — 'without  a  word— without 
a  look  of  evil — suddenly,  abruptly,  roughly.  Is  this  the  working  of  the 
•will  of  a  seducer  ?  Is  this  the  driving  of  a  lust  towards  its  end  ?.  Is  this,  as 
all  experience  goes,  in  rerum  natura  ?  I  think  not.  What  then  ?  Is  the 
witness  to  the  present  allegation  a  perjured  person  ?  Are  all  the  other 
witnesses  perjured  in  ,  like  manner?  '  I  make  no  such  presumption. 
Doubtless  in  the  affidavit,  and  in  the  testimony  under  this  present  articfe, 
there  are  discrepancies  not  easy  to  be.  recpn oiled.  The  improbability 
of  the  statement,  that  a  'considerable  portion  of  ten  or  fu-elve  miles  were 
driven  afteT  dark, when  the  parties  started  an  hour  before  sunset,  on  a  day 
when  twilight  lasted  two  hours  after  the  sun.  was  dawn,  and  continued  to 
drive. steadily  on.  The  disagreement  between  the  affidavit  and  tho  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler,  as  to  when  and  how  the  most  offensive  im- 
pression was  first  received  by  him.  The  singular  want  of  understanding, 

.for  so  many  years,  between  the  witness  arid  her  husband,  as  to  this  point. 
so  that  that  which  never  did  occur,  and  which  she  never  said  occurred, 
should  yet  be  sworn  to  in. his  solemn  affidavit.  But  I  leave  all  these. to 
state  what  I  believe  to  be  the  true  solution  of  this  case,  and  of  the  rest. 

.  The  Respondent  is  a  man  of  free  and  •unsuspecting  nature.  The  law  of 
kindness  overflows  in  him.  He  has' indulged  it  always  in  acts  of  great 
familiarity;  •  He  has  acquired  a  habit  which  might  easily  permit,  in  him, 
freedoms  of  posture  and  of  gesture,  which  another,  with  less  purity  of  heart, 


might  carefully  avoid.  It  has  been  manifest  in  all  his  intercourse. 
It  is  proverbial.  Those  who  have  known  him  well,  think,  nothing  of 
it.  In  every  ten  to  whom  it  might  occur,  there  might  be  nine  to  do  so ; 
the  tenth  might  view  it  otherwise.  I  do  not  justify  it ;  I  regret  it.  But 
there  never  seems  to  have  been  the  thought  of  harm  in  it.  It  never  sought 
concealment :  it  was  never  gone  after  :  it  was  never  followed  up  :  it  was 
done  with  the  manner  of  a  father  to  a  child  :  it  was  accompanied  with  words 
to  that  effect,  as  several  witnesses  have  testified.  He  had  been  so  exten- 
sively connected,  as  a  pastor  and  as  a  friend  ;  so  many  had  grown  up  upon 
his  knee,  as  with  the  present -witness  ;  these  acts  of  fondness  had  so  insen- 
sibly stolen  on,  from  infancy  to  childhood,  to  girlhood,  to  womanhood  ;  they 
had  so  shaped  his  whole  demeanor,  that  they  were  done,  when  done,  with- 
out a  thought,  and  never  thought  of  afterwards.  In  these  ways,  a  care- 
lessness of  manner  was  acquired,  which  rendered  postures  that  might  be 
mistaken,  and  motives  that  might  be  misconstrued,  and  gestures  that  might 
be  misconceived,  and  contacts  that  never  were  intended,  an  easy  thine  ; 
and  yet,  however  liable  to  error,  in  the  judgment  of  the  second  per- 
son, or  of  the  looker-on,  in  him  without  a  thought  of  evil,  'k  is 
so  that  I  account  for  what  must  have  occurred,  to  give  any  semblance 
to  the  statements  of  the  witness  under  this,  as  under  the  other  articles. 
Less  occurred,  I  have  no  doubt,  than  in  her  excited  apprehension  was 
supposed.  Less  occurred,  I  have  no  doubt,  than  to  her  recollection,  over- 
wrought by  recent  agitations,  and  the  conforming  influence  of  sympathy, 
especially  on  female  temperaments,  now  appears.  I  feel  well  satisfied 
-that,  had  she  not  been  governed,  at  the  time,  as  she  a/': nits  she  was,  partly 
by  her  remembrance  of  the  kindly  ways  of  her  father's  familiar  friend, 
and  partly  by  what  she  supposed  the  excitement  of  his  condition,  the  wo- 
man nature  that  was  in  her  would  have  overleaped  the  thought  of  prudence, 
and  found  rescue  long  before.  Nothing,  as  I  believe,  on  full  consideration 
-of  the  evidence,  was  done,  that  had  in  it  the  thought  of  immorality  or  im- 
purity. I  therefore '"  declare"  the  Respondent,  in  my  "opinion,"  -not 
guilty  of  the  charge,  or  charges,  alleged  in  Article  I.  of  the  Presentment. 

II.  I  am  called  on  to  declare  whether  in  my  opinion  the  Respondent  is 
"guilty"  or  "not  guilty"  of  immorality  and  impurity  in  the  following  "arti- 
cle" which  has  just  been  read,  viz:  "that  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
Bishop  as  aforesaid,  at  the  said  time  and  place  mentioned  in  the  last  speci- 
fication, was  under  the  influence  of,  and  improperly  excited  by,  vinous  or 
spirituous  liquors,  drunk  by  him,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  contrary 
to  his  duty  as  Bishop,  and  to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  said  Church." 

If  it  were  proved  that  this  were  so,  it  could  not  be  alleged  as  a  charge  of 
present  immorality.  To  have  been  "  improperly  excited"  seven  years  and 
a  half  ago,  could  not  be  claimed  as  going  to  establish  the  existence  now  of 
evil  habit.  Not  to  say  that  by  the  very  language  used,  a  question  of  less  or 
more  is  introduced,  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  a  Presentment. 
But  such  as  it  is,  it  is  by  no  means  proved.  It  is  not  alleged  that  any  thing 
was  drunk  upon  the  road.  The  duties  of  the  day — a  full  morning  service, 
and  a  sermon,  with  the  Holy  Communion  ;  a  full  evening  service  and  a  ser- 
mon, with  Confirmation — and  setting  out  directly  after  the  latter,  hardly 
allow  the  opportunity  which  such  a  charge  required.  It  rests  on  the  smell 
of  the  breath,  on  a  talkative  disposition,  on  the  supposed  thick  ness  of  the  voice, 
and  on  sleeping  heavily,  all  which  might  have  occurred  without  improper 
excitement :  and  against  all  which  are  to  be  set  the  admitted  facts,  that 


293 

many  letters  were  read,  some  read  aloud,  and  all  without  the  slightest  fail- 
ure in  articulation  or  intelligence. 

I  therefore  declare  the  Respondent,  in  my  "opinion,"  not  guilty  of  the 
charge  or  charges  alleged  in  Article  II.  of  the  Presentment. 

III.  I  am  called  on  to  declare  whether  in  my  "  opiniort  "  the  Respondent 
in  this  case  is  "  guilty"  or  "not  guilty"  of  immorality  and  impurity  in  the  fol- 
lowing "  article"  which  has  just  been  read,  viz  :  that  "  the  said  Benjamin 
T.  Onderdonk,  being  then  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  was  travelling  in  a  public 
stage  from  Batavia,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  to  Utica  in  the  same  Dio- 
cese, for  the  purpose  of  attending  a  meeting  of  the  Convention  of  the  said 
Diocese,  then  about  to  be  held  at  Utica  ;  that  the  only  passengers  in  the 
said  stage  were  the  said  Bishop  and  the  Rev.  James  A.  Bolles  and  a  young 
woman  to  the  said  Presenting  Bishops  unknown,  and  whose  name  they  ar« 
not  able  to  furnish  ;  that  the  said  Bishop  and  young  woman  occupied  the 
back  seat,  and  the  said  James  A.  Bolles  the  middle  seat  of  the  said  stage  j-* 
and  that  thereupon  afterwards,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  impurely 
and  unchastely  put  his  arm  around  the  body  of  the  said  young  woman,  and 
took  other  indecent  liberties  with  her  person,  and  behaved  in  so  improper 
and  unbecoming  a  manner,  that  the  said  young  woman  endeavoi'ed  to  get 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  and  fipally,  with  a 
view  to  escape  his  rudeness,  left  the  stage  before  reaching  tke  place  of  her 
destination  :  which  said  conduct  of  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  the 
said  Bishops  present  as  contrary  to  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  ami 
to  the  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church  aforesaid." 

It  would  be  fatal  to  this  article,  were  there  no  other  objection  to  it,  that  il 
comes  into  the  Presentment  on  inferior  evidence,  where  there  was  better  ta 
be  had.  Three  Bishops,  under  this  Canon,  come  in  the  place  of  two-thirds  of 
two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  clergy  in  any  Diocese  ;  and  of  two-thirda 
of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  parishes  canonically  in  union  with 
the  Convention  in  said  Diocese  ;  they  are  thus  made  equal  to  four-ninths 
of  any  Diocese.  It  is  a  tremendous  responsibility.  It  must  be  borne  with 
very  inferior  opportunities,  and  with  a  liability  to  error  greatly  increased. 
It  must,  therefore,  if  the  peace  of  (he  Church,  and  the  fraternal  intercourse 
of  the  Bishops  are  to  be  preserved,  be  exercised  with  the  nfost  rigorous 
care.  It  should  not  have  suffered  itself,  in  this  case,  to  make  use  of  any 
other  person's  affidavit,  when  the  only  witness,  Mr.  Bolles,  was  equally 
accessible.  "  There  is,  however,  as  it  seems,"  says  Starkie,  "  but  one  rule 
of  policy  which  operates  as  a  general  principle  of  evidence  ;  the  exclusion 
in  other  cases  being  casual  and  fortuitous,  and  depending  on  grounds  un- 
connected with  £he  principles  on  which  the  system  is  founded.  This  rule 
or  principle  consists  in  requiring  the  best  evidence  to  be  adduced,  which 
the  case  admits  of;  or  rather,  perhaps,  more  properly,  in  rejecting  second- 
ary and  inferior  evidence,  when  it  is  attempted  to  be  substituted  for  evidence 
of  a  higher  and  superior  nature.  This  is  a  rule  of  policy  grounded  on 
a  reasonable  suspicion,  that  the  substitution  of  inferior  for  better  evidence, 
arises  from  some  sinister  motive ;  and  an  apprehension  that  the  best  evi- 
dence, if  produced,  would  alter  the  case,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  party."  I. 
102.  I  desire  here,  once  for  all,  to  disclaim  any  doubt  of  fairness  in  the 
Presenters,  in  this  case.  I  look  at  facts,  as  they  hare  come  before  us- 
As  to  the  first  "article,"  that  it  was  sustained  by  but  one  witness,  so  to 
this,  besides  that  ob^ction,  I  also  object,  that  that  one  witness,  by  his  affi- 
davit, was  not  made  the  basis  of  the  charge  j  but  the  affidavit  of  a  persoa 


294 

who  was  not  a  witness,  and  who  could,  therefore,  give  but  hearsay  evidence, 
used  for  that  purpose.  Nor  does  the  testimony  .of  the  only  witness  at  all 
sustain  the  charge.  It  is  proved  by  him  that  the  particulars  were  other- 
wise  than  they  are  charged.  It  is  proved  by  him,  that  he  attached  no 
serious  importance  to  what  did  occur ;  and  never  would  have  mentioned 
it,  but  for  the  rumor  of  the  Butler  case,  which  met  him  at  Utica.  It  is 
proved  by  him,  that  in  the  conversation  of  himself  and  a  third  person  with 
the  Bishop,  had  at  Utica,  immediately  thereafter,  he  (the  witness)  expressly 
corrected,  and  positively  denied,  what  constitutes,  in  this  Presentment,  the 
whole  gravamen  of  the  charge.  I  therefore  declare  the  Respondent,  in  my 
"opinion,"  not  guilty  of  the  charge  or  charges  alleged  in  Article  III.  of 
4he  Presentment. 

IV.  As  no  evidence  has  been  adduced  under  the  fourth  "  article"  of  th« 
Presentment,  I  of  course  "declare,"  as  my  "opinion,"  that  the  Respondent 
is  not  guilty  of  the  charge  or  charges  alleged  in  it. 

'V.  I  am  called  on  to  declare,  whether  in  my  "  opinion"  the  Respondent 
in  this  case  is  "guilty"  or  "not  guilty"  of  immorality  and  impurity,  in 
the  following  "  article,"  which  has  just  been  read,  viz.,  "that  between  the 
months  of  May  and  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1841,  to  wit,  on  or  about 
Sunday  the  13th  day  of  June  in  the  said  last  mentioned  year,  the  said 
Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  then  being  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  visited  St.  James' 
Church,  Hamilton  Square,  New  York  city  ;  that  soon  after  the  services  of 
the  Church  were  ended,  and  on  the  day  last  aforesaid,  he  left  tho  said 
church  in  a  carriage  in  company  with  Miss  Helen  M.  Rudderow,  a  young 
lady,  to  proceed  as  a  guest  to  the  house  of  her  brother,  John  Rudderow, 
Esq. ;  that  while  riding  in  the  said  carriage,  by  the  side  of  the  said  young 
lady,  he,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  impurely  and  unchastely 
thrust  his  hand  beneath  her  dress,  upon  the  bosom  of  the  said  Helen  M. 
Rudderow,  to  her  great  alarm  and  consternation,  and  in  violation  of  the 
proper  duty  of  a  Bishop,  and  in  breach  of  the  consecration  vow  of  the 
said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  to  the  great  scandal  and  injury  of  the  Church 
of  Christ." 

Referring  to  the  statement  made  at  length,  before,  of  habits  of  innocent 
familiarity  in  the  Respondent,  which,  to  one  who  did  not  know  him  well,  (as 
was  the  case  with  the  witness  to  this,  and  every  other  article  in  the  Present- 
ment, since  the  first,)  might  easily  present  the  appearance  of  improper 
freedoms  ;  considering  the  time  and  place:  and  circumstances  of  the  al- 
leged occurrence,  as  involving  an  inevitable  exposure ;  considering  the 
absence  of  that  instinctive  refuge  %vhich  a  woman  finds  or  makes,  who 
feels  herself  insulted ;  considering  the  subsequent  deportrnent  of  tho  wit- 
ness in  this  case  towards  the  Respondent,  as  inconsistent  with  the  thought, 
at  that  time,  that  she  had  been  so  aggrieved  ;  considering  that  she  stands 
alone  in  the  Presentment  as  a  witness  to  this  charge,  appearing  chiefly  in 
her  sister's  affidavit,  upon  hearsay  merely  ;  considering  that  in  her  gene- 
ral attestation,  in  her  own  brief  affidavit,  that  "  every  word"  of  her  sister 
Jane's  "is  true,"  when  she  was  not  a  witness  of  what  is  alleged  to  have  oc- 
curred between  the  Respondent  and  her  sister,  and  could  know  it  only  on 
her  statement,  she  has  shown  herself  not  clearly  sensible  of  the  so'emni- 
ty  of  testimony  under  oath,  I  declare  the  Respondent,  in  rny  "  opinion," 
not  guilty  of  the  charge  or  charges  alleged  in  article  V.  of  this  Presentment. 
VI.  1  am  called  on  to  declare  whether  in  my  "opinion"  the  Respondent 
in  this  case  is  "guilty,"  or  "not  guilty,"  of  immorality  and  impurity  in  the 


following  "  article,"  which  has  just  been  read,  viz. :  "  that  on  the  same  day 
mentioned  in  the  last  specification,  the  said. Benjamin  T.  OnderdonJj, 
"Bishop  as  aforesaid,  was  received  at  the  house  of  the  said  John  Ru'dde- 
*'  row,  in  the  parlor  thereof,  by  Jane  O.  Rudderow,  and  that  thereupon^  the 
."said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  impurely  and  'unchastely  thrust  his  hand 
"into  the  bosom  of  the  said  Jane  O.  Rudderow,  apd  upon  being  repelled, 
"took  other  indecent  arid  unbecoming  liberties  with. the  said  lady,  ia  viola- 
*' tion  of  his  duty  as  Bishop,  and  his  consecration  vow  in  that  behalf,  and 
"to  the  great  scandal  and  disgrace. of  his  said  office." 

On  the  same  grounds  as  those  alleged  before,  under  the  last  article,  in- 
creased by  greater  improbability,  if  that  be  possible,  that  the  acts  of  the 
Respondent,  at  the  time,  could  have  been  such  as  to  be  thought  insulting, 
and  by  fuller  evidence  of  subsequent  cordiality,  evincing  a  continued  ab- 
sence of  such  conviction  ;  rejecting  the  single  witness,  as  insufficient,  by  . 
the  rule  of  the  Apostle,  to  prove  any  ".accusation"  against  the  Respondent; 
and  deeming  what  did  occur  between  them  as  fully  met  by  the  explanation 
given  before,  of  the  Respondent's  manner,  I  declare  him  not  guilty,  in  my 
"opinion,"  of  the  charge  or  charges  alleged  HI  article  VI.  of  this  Pre- 
sentment. • 

VII.   I  am  called  on  to  declare  whether,  in  my  "opinion,"  the  Respondent 
is  "  guilty,"  or  "  not  guilty,"  "of  immorality  and  impurity,"  in  the  following 
4  article"  which  has  just  been  .read.    V  That  on  or  abqut  the  17th  day  of 
'  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1842,  the  said  Benjamin  *T.  Onderdbok,  then 
'being 'Bishop  as  aforesaid,  held  a  confirmation. at.  Zion  Church,  I^ong  lei-  • 
4  and,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York  :  that  after  the  services  were  ended;  the 
'said  Benjamin  T*.  Onderdonk  returned  to' the  house  of  the  Rev.  Henry  jf,- 
"  Beare.  where  he  was  a  guest>  in  the  carriage  of  the-said  Henry  M..  BeareV 
"  in  company  with  Mrs.  Charlotte  E.  Beare,  the  wife  of  the  said-  Henry  ^ 
*' that  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  and  Charlotte  E.  Beare,  occupied 
"  the  back  seat  of  the  said  carriage,  and  the  other  persons  in  the  same  Were 
"so  situated,  as  to  have  their  backs  towards   the  Bishop  and  the  said  Cbar-  '. 
'*  lotte  ;  that  thereupon,  he,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  impurely  andf     . 
*'  unchastely  put  his  .arm  around  the' body  of  the  said  Charlotte,  drew  hef 
"towards  hicnself.  and  at  the  same  time  felt  her  bosom  in.  an  improper  and1 
"indecent  manner,  so  as  to  Scandalize  the  feelings  of  said  lady,  and  cause 
Mher  to  remove  herself,  from  him  as  far  as  the  side  of  the  carriage  would 
"  permit,  to  avoid  his  rudeness,  in  violation  of  his  duty  as   Bishop,   and 
«<  of  his  consecration  vow,  in  that  behalf,  and  to  the  disgrace  of  his -^aid 
"office." 

In  the  absence- of  more  than  one  witness,. (the  article  in  the  Presentment, 
moreover,  contrary  to  the  rule  alleged  before  from  Starkie,  is  /bunded  oo  . 
the  affidavit  of  the  husband  of  the  witness,  and  not  on  her  owe;)  in  the  ex- 
treme improbability  that  an  impression  then'  received  of  actual  impurity 
would  have  kept  silence  under  it,  and  again  exposed  itself  Jo  a  repetition  of 
the  sams,  rather  than  walk  a  quarter  of  a  mile,,  through  Mr.  Franklin'* 
lane,  or  request  Mr.  Thomas  Beare  to  go  that  much  out  of  his  way  ;  in  the 
muclj  greater  improbability  that  such  an  impression  would  have  exposed " 
itself  at  night  to  such  a  repetition,  when,  for  all  thaf  has  been  shown;  the 
other  carriage,  and  the  boy  that  drove  it  in  the  morning,  might  have  beep- 
employed  ;  and  explaining  whatever  did  occur  to  excite  the  apprehension, 
of  an  undue  freedom, -by  the  indulgence  in  the  careless  way  alluded  'to  -be- 


296 

fore,  I  "declare"  the  Respondent  not  guilty,  in  my  "opinion,"  of  the 
charge  or  charges  alleged  in  Article  VII.  of  the  Presentment. 

VIII.  I  am  called  on,  finally,  to  "declare"  whether,  in  my  "opinion," 
the  Respondent  in  this  case  is  "guilty,"  or  "not  guilty,"  "of  immorality 
and  impurity,"  in  the  following  "  article,"  which  has  just  been  read,  viz.  : 
"  that  in  the  afternoon  of  the  said  17th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1842,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  held  a  confirmation  at  Whitestone 
Chapel  on  Long  Island  aforesaid  ;  and  after  the  services,  went  to  spend  the 
evening  at  the  house  of  Joseph  L.  Franklin,  Esq.,  on  said  Island.  That 
about  9  o'clock  at  night,  the  said  Bishop  was  returning  home  to  the  house 
of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare,  where  he  was  a  guest,  and  was  accompanied, 
in  the  carnage  of  the  said  Henry  M.  Beare,  by  the  said  Charlotte,  the  wife 
of  the  said  Henry — she  being  constrained  by  circumstances  to  ride  with  the 
said  Bishop,  against  her  desire,  and  she  and  the  said  Bishop  sitting  alone  on 
the  back  seat.  That  while  thus  on  their  way,  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onder- 
donk again  insulted  the  said  Charlotte  E.  Beare  in  the  grossest  manner,  by 
impurely  and  unchastely  putting  one  arm  around  her  body,  while  he  thrust 
the  other  hand  beneath  her  dress  upon  her  naked  bosom  ;  that,  upon  the 
same  being  indignantly  repelled^  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  repeated 
the  indignity,  and  finished  his  rudeness  by  passing  his  hand  in  the  most 
indecent  manner  down  the  body  ?f  the  said  Charlotte,  outside  of  her  dress, 
so  that  nothing  but  the  end  of  her  corset  bone  prevented  his  hand  from  being 
pressed  on  the  privsfte  parts  of  her  body :  all  which  acts  and  doings  threw 
the  said  Charlotte  into  the  deepest  distress,  to  the  manifest  scandal  and 
injury  of  the  Church,  of  Which  the  said  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk  was  a 
Bishop,  and  in  violation  of  his  vows  before  God,  solemnly  entered  into  on 
his  consecration." 

I  apply  to  this  "  article"  as  the  sulstratum  of  my  explanation,  the  solution 
given  throughout,  before.  I  grant'  that  there  may  have  been  what  seemed 
to  the  witness  (again  the  single  witness)  ah  undue  familiarity  of  manner; 
and  that,  in  the  careless  way  before  described,  motions  may  have  been  made, 
and  contacts  may  have  occurred,  without  a  thought  or  consciousness  in  the 
Respondent,  which  she  misunderstood  and  misapplied.  But  I  am  unable  to 
resist  the  natural  argument  from  my  reliance  on  a  woman's  instinct,  espe- 
cially with  her  husband  within  her  reach,  against  her  then  appreciation  of 
them  in  the  way  set  forth  in  the  Presentment ;  and  I  find  it  impossible  to 
reconcile  the  uncalled  for  acts  of  courtesy  and  hospitality  which  have  been 
clearly  proved,  with  such  a  sense  of  wrong  as  is  therein  declared.  The  strength 
of  this  case  lies  in  the  supposed  admission  by  the  Respondent,  at  the  second 
interview,  with  sundry  of  the  clergy,  as  inconsistent  with  his.alleged  denial,  av 
the  first.  The  testimony  here  is  somewhat  difficult  to  reconcile.  I  put  myself, 
that  I  may  get  their  sense,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  in  the  place  of  the  witnesses  of 
the  alleged  admission.  I  suppose  myself  to  have  understood  the  Respondent, 
on  the  second  day,  to  admit  that  he  had  done  the  gross  acts  charged  in  the 
Presentment ;  and,  I  then  ask  myself,  how  is  it  possible  that  Dr.  Milnor,  Dr. 
Muhlenberg,  Dr.  Higbee,  and,  above  all,  Mr.  Beare,  as  Dr.  Milnor  positively 
testifies,  could  have  consented,  expressly  or  by  implication,  to  "  say  no  more 
about  it  ?"  I  feel  myself  compelled  to  stand  between  their  characters  as 
Christian  men,  and  Christian  ministers,  and  such  an  explanation.  On  the 
other  hand,  I  suppose  the  great  anxiety  of  Mr.  Beare  to  have  been,  to  have 
his  wife  relieved  from  the  denial. of  her  veracity,  (as  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  I 
think,  expresses  it,  "  her  word,")  which  had  been  just  reported  to  him  ;  and 


297 

the  Respondent  readily  ad  witting  that  be  designed  to  bring  no  charge  against 
her  veracity,  at  the  same  time  that  all  that  she  alleged  against  himself,  a? 
being  offensive,  was  without  foundation,  and  the  mere  result  of  her  misap- 
prehension ;  and  the  conclusion  then  becomes  most* natural.  Mr.  Beare  was 
relieved  from  the  impression  that  his  wife  was  charged  with  lying.  Allwere 
relieved  from  the  impression  that  immorality  or  impurity  was  necessarily 
involved  in  her  statement  of  the  case.  And  they  parted  v.  ith  the  understand, 
ing  that  the  affair  was  settled,  and  no  more  to  be  said  about  it.  And  there 
is  a  further,  and,  if  possible,  even  more  conclusive  test,  that  this  is  the  true 
solution,  in  the  closing  words  of  the  second  interview.  If  the  Respondent 
really  owned  his  guilt,  and  Dr.  Milnor  understood  it  so,  are  notms  admo- 
nition, and  the  Respondent's  answer,  most  remarkable?  We  are  to  sup- 
pose Dr.  Milnor,  when  the  Respondent  had  not  only  confessed  impurity,  but 
convicted  himself  of  falsehood,  coolly  addressing  him  as  follows :  "  I  hope, 
Bishop,  that  what  has  now  occurred,  will  put  you  on  your  guard ;  the  more,  as 
I  have  heard  of  other  similar  rumors !"  This  is  surely  not  the  language  of , 
an  aged  Presbyter,  whose  mind  was  burdened  by  his  Bishop's  confession  of 
aggravated  immorality,  denied  .by  him  only  the  day  before.  And  what  does 
the  Respondent  reply  ?  ."In  regard  to  rumors  of  this  kind,  Doctor,  about 
Clergymen,  there  are  few  that  have  not,  at  some  time,  had  occasion  to  en- 
counter them.:'  Is  this  the  answer  of  one  who  had  just  owned  bis  guilt? 
And  if  it  had  been,  if  be  had  so  understood  it  then  to  be,  could  the  rejoinder 
of  Dr.  Milnor  have  been  what  has  been  stated  ?  Must  it  not  rather  have 
been  in  words  to  this  effect:  "In  regard  to  rumors  not  admitted,  Bishop, 
your  remark  is  well ;  but  as  you  have  just  confessed  all  that  relates  to  Mrs. 
Beare,  I  see  not  how  it  can  apply  to  you."  I  thus  dispose  of  the  weight  at- 
tempted to  be  brought  to  bear  upon  this  case  by  the  alleged  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  Respondent's  conduct  at  the  first,  and  at  the  second  interview  ~ 
and  am  compelled  to  "declare"  him  not  guilty,  in  my  "opinion,"  of  the 
charge  or  charges  alleged  in  Article  VIII.  of  this  Presentment. 

G.  W.  DOAXE,    . 
Bishop  of  JYezc  Jersey. 


ADJUDICATION  OF  THE  SENTENCE. 

The  undersigned  has  declared  his  "  opinion"  that  the  Respondent  in  this 
case  is  not  guilty  of  "  immorality  and  impurity,"  as  charged  in  the  Present- 
ment. He  holds  to  that  conviction.  A  majority  of  the  Court,  however, 
have  decla'red  that  in  their  "opinion"  he  is  '-'guilty';"  and  by  the  Canon, 
"  the  Court,"  of  which  the  undersigned  is  one,  must  now  "pass  sentence, 
and  award  the  penalty  of  admonition,  suspension,  or  deposition."  The  un- 
dersigned, and  those  who  agreed  with  him  in  "opinion,"  must  withhold 
themselves  from  the  further  action  of  "  the  Court,"  and  so  expose  the  Re- 
spondent, who,  in  their  "  opinion,"  is  not  guilty,  to  the  highest  sentence  which 
the  Canon  knows ;  or  else  they  must  unite  in  consenting  to  a  lower  sentence 
on  one,  who,  in  their  opinion,  is  deserving  of  none.  Between  these  two, 
the  undersigned  does  not  permit  himself  to  hesitate.  "  Deposition,"  by 
the  present  canonical  provisions  of  this  Church,  is  irrevocable.  Should 

3S 


.      •  ..          ',-  -      298 

«uch  be  the  decision  of  a  majority. of.  this.Court,  not.  only  the  Respondent, 
but  themselves  would  'be  cut  off  from  any  future  'beneficial  action.  The  un- 
dersjgned  Is  bound  in  conscience,  so  far  as  in  him  lies,  lo'avert  a  result-so 
'unjust  and  so  unhappy.  Therefore,  although  he. has  voted  thaf  the  Respon- 
dent-is- u  not  guilty,"  and  still  believes  h tin  so,  his  '"sentence"  is,  tiia.1  he 
receive  (he  lightest  "admonition"  permitted  by  the  Canon, 

G.  \V.  DOANE, 
. .       •    .",*  Bishop  of  New  Jersey. 


FARTHER  ADJUDICATION:  O#  THE  SENTENCE. 

The  Court  having  failed,  m  two  several  scrutinies^  to  "'pass  sentence" 
on  the  Respondent,  bya  majority  of  their  votes>  the  undersigned  now  con- 
sents to  "suspension,"  to  avoid  "deposition." 
...  .      .  • .  G.  W.  DOANE, 

*  s  :  Bishop  of  New  Jersey. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  THE  NORTH  WESTERN 

DIOCESE/-  ^-:- 

l  VOTE  for  admonition. 

Had  I  been  permitted  yesterday  to  give  my  real  opinion,.!  would  have 
said  that  articles  1st,  3d,  5th,  6th,  7lh,  and  8th,  were  not  proved,  according 
to  the  Apostolic  rule,  1  Timothy,  v.  19,  by  which  I  consider  myself  bound 
4a  judge  in  this  case* 

Article  2d,  Not  proved. 

Article  4th,  Not  proved  ;•  no  evidence  being  brought  forward. 

And  I  would  have  added  in  reference  to  articles  7th  and  8th,  as  follows: 
;If  the  declarations  of -the  Bishop,  which  -he  made  to  the  Rev.'  Mr.  Beare, 
had -been  considered  by  the  Reverend  gentlemen  who  were  present  on  that 
occasion,  an  acknowledgment  of  guilt,  they  were  solemnly  bound  to  pre- 
sent-hint (the  said  Bishop)  for  trial;  or,  at  all  events,  they  could  not  have 
agreed-to  bury  the  subject. 

JACKSON  KEMPER. 


299 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  LOUISIANA. 

K 

[CONCURRED  IN  BY  TIIK  BISHOPS  or  RHODE  ISLAND,  AND  THJE   SOPTH  WESTERN 

MISSIONARY    DIOCESE.] 

THE  undersigned,  constituting  a  part  of  the  majority  of  the  Court  duly 
convened  in  St.  John's  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York,  for  the  trial  of  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  according  to  the  provisions  of 
Canon  III.,  "  On  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,"  passed  hy  the  General  Convention 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  at  its 
session  held  in  October,  1844,  having  in  their  individual  capacity,  as  mem- 
bers of  said  Court,  given  their  verdict  respectively,  that  their  accused  brother 
is  guilty  of  several  of  the  charges  and  specifications  contained  in  the  Pre- 
sentment upon  which  he  has  been  tried,  deem  it  proper,  under  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  case,  to  enter  upon  the 'records  of  the  Court  a  brief 
statement  of  the  reasons  by  which  they  were  influenced  in  the  rendition  of 
the  verdict  aforesaid. 

First.  The  direction  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  (v.  19,)  "  Against  an  elder 
receive  not  an  accusation,  but  before,  or  by,  two  or  three  witnesses."  was  in 
this  case  strictly  complied  with,  inasmuch  as  three  of  his  brother  Bishops 
presented  accusations  of  immorality  against  the  Respondent. 

Secondly.  Though  some  of  the  immoralities  with  which  the  Respondent 
•was  charged  were  alleged  to  have  been  committed  more  than  three  years 
ago,  yet,  as  no  limitation  to  the  inquiry  of  the  Court,  in  cases  of  criminal 
prosecution,  is  fixed  or  recognised  by  the  Canons  of  the  Church  ;  and  as  the 
acts  alleged  in  the  Presentment  all  occurred  since  the  elevation  of  the  Re- 
spondent to  the  Episcopate,  and  were  charged  against  him  as  violations  of 
his  consecration  vows;  and  inasmuch  as  this  Court,  before  entering  upon 
the  trial,  after  full  discussion,  solemnly  decided  that  none  of  the  accusations 
could  be  rightfully  dismissed  on  account  of  the  remoteness  of  the  period 
when  the  facts  oh  which  seme  of  them  were  founded,  took  place — the  under- 
signed felt  sacredly  bound  to  enter  upon  the  examination  of  all  the.  allega- 
tions contained  in  the  Presentment,  and  to  pronounce  upon  each  of  them  a- 
sentence  of  Guilty  or  Not  Guilty,  according  to  the  law  and  the  testimony. 

Thirdly.  Although  two  of  the  specifications  on  which  the  Respondent  has 
been  found  guilty,  viz.,  tiie  fifth  and  sixth,  are  respectively  supported  by  the 
clear  and  direct  testimony  of  only  one  unimpeached  witness  each,  yet,  as 
this  was  the  full  amount  of  testimony  which  coold  possibly  be  expected, 
considering  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  allegations  ;  and  inasmuch  as  im- 
moralities of  the  same  kind,  alleged  in  specifications  first,  seventh,  and 
eighth,  were  proved,  either  by  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses,  as  in  one 
case,  or,  as  in  the  two  others,  by  the  clear  and  direct  testimony  of  one  un- 
impeached witness,  and  corroborated  by  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Re- 
spondent himself,  to  other  witnesses,  whose  testimony  has  been  given  on  this 


300 

trial,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  witnesses  to  the  several  specifications  ad- 
minister  mutual  support  to  each  other ;  and,  for  these  reasons,  and  others 
which  might  be  stated,  the  undersigned  are  persuaded  that  the  verdict  of 
Guilty,  which  it  has  been  their  painful  duty  to  pronounce  against  their 
offending  brother,  as  to  the  charge  of  immorality  and  impurity  set  forth  in 
the  several  specifications  in  the  Presentment  upon  which  that  verdict  has 
been  given,  is  sustained  by  the  full  number  of  witnesses,  and  the  full  amount 
of  testimony  that  was  ever  required  by  the  Levitical  or  the  ecclesiastical, 
by  the  statute,  the  common,  or  the  canon  law-,  in  support  of  a  like  verdict  in 
any  case  of  criminal  prosecution. 

LEONIDAS  POLK, 
Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 

Diocese  of  Louisiana. 
J.  P.  K.  HENSHAW, 

Bishop  of  Rhode  Island. 
GEO.  W.  FREEMAN, 

Missionary  Bishop  for  Arkansas. 

**'.  f>  .*  :>  .«••'</.  T-    '  •       '   •••    i»;  w 


• 

• 


-,-,•    ••.     : 


301 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  WESTERN  NEW  YORK. 

/;*  the  name  of  God,  Amen. 

I,  William  H.  De  Lancey,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  New  York, 
do  hereby  declare,  that  in  my  opinion  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
D.  D..  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New 
York,  who  has  been  presented  under  Canon  iii.  of  1844,  by  the  Rt.  Rev. 
William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Virginia,  the  Rt.  Rev.  James  H.  Otey, 
D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Tennessee,  and  the  Rt.  R,ev.  Stephen  Elliott,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  Georgia,  as  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  in  several  specifi- 
cations, 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  first  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment  : 

h  not  g uilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  second  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  third  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  fifth  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment: 

Is  no!  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  sixth  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  seventh  arti- 
cle of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  eighth  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment: 

And.  having  had  no  testimony  offered  against  him  in  support  of  the  spe- 
cification in  the  fourth  article  of  the  aforementioned  Presentment,  is  to  be 
held,  and  is  by  me,  believed  to  be  not  guilty  of  the  charge  of  immorality 
and  impurity  therein  alleged. 

Given  as  my  opinion,  in  Court  assembled  to  try  the  said  Rt.  Rev.  Benja- 
min T.  Onderdonk,  under  the  aforesaid  Presentment,  January  2,  1845. 

WILLIAM  H.  DE  LANCEY, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  Ncio  York. 

I  reserve  to  myself  the  right  to  put  on  the  records  of  the  Court,  if  I  should 
think  fit,  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  the  opinion. 

W.  H.  DE  LANCEY. 
New  York,  Jan.  2,  1845. 


30* 


:V.>r:^V 

•^•Vp-'"-^'-''.--  -M- 

GROUNDS 
•//•  f •'"•'-  .:y ••".'••  *t '  ___, 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  WESTERN  NEW  YORK. 


solemnly  declared-  my  opinion  that  the  Right  Rev.  Benjamin 
Tredwell  Onderdonk,  D,  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  is  NOT 
COTLTY  of  the  charges  and  specifications  laid  against  him  ;  in  the'  Present- 
ment: made  by  the  Right  Rev.  Wra.  Meade  of  Virgiaia,  the  Right  Rev. 
J&rnes  H..Otey  of  Tennessee,  and  the  Right  Rev.  Stephen  Elliott,  of 
Georgia  j  and  having  claimed  the  right  to  put  on  the  records  of  the  Court 
the/grounds  and  reasons-  of  my  opinion,  I  herein  set  forth  the  views,  priu- 
.  .  •  etpies,  .arid  considerations,  which  have  led  me  to  the  opinion  which  I  have 
declared,  ii  thisoase. 

I  "bring  to  the  decision  6f  the  question  no  aid  from  the  previous  know- 
ledge or  s_tudy  of  law,  Or  the  practice  of  it  in  any  court. 

Thaverjever  before  sat'bn  any  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  My  guide  must 
bg-'the  -plain  common  .sense-  which  God  has  given  me,  enlightened  by  the 
Scriptures  of  truth,  and  swayed  by  the  .best  judgment  I  can  bring  to  bear 
upon  -the  character  of  the  testimony  given,  and  the  force  of  the  circum- 
stances- winch  modify  its  influence  on'rny  mind. 

•^tlt-must  he  admitted,  that  the  canon,  under  which  the  court  is  constituted 
ifcffd  compelled  to  act^  is,  in  many  respects,  defective,  •  It  leaves  unsettled  and 
even  untouched  rrtajny  most  important  points,  oa  which  the  minds  of  mem- 
bers of  the  court  have  been  much  embarrassed-,.  It  fixes  no  rule  as  to  the 
^«mi>er  of  witness.es  necessary  to  prove  «  charge.  It  fixes  no  rule  as  tc- 
ihe'  limitation  of  time,  beyond  which  charges  are  -to  be  regarded  as  stale 
r^nd  undeserving  of  investigation.  :  It  is  somewhat  dubious  as  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  the  Presenters  cap  sit  as  judges.  It  gives  no  power  to  .chaU 
Jesge  the  right  of  a  Bishop  to  a'ct  as.  juror  and  judger  who  for  any  reason 
niay  .be  supposed  to  be  inimical  to  the  accused  party.  "It  fixes  no  penalty 
flip  witnesses  not  appearing^  when  summoned.  It  fails  to  .  explain  the 
meaning  of  the  term  ;'  suspension,  "-or-  whether  the  Caurt.can  limit-it  or 
<yot^  It  provides  no  mode  of  removing  the  se-ntence.  ef  suspension.  It. 
compels/these,  wiio  think,  an  arraigned  person  not  guilty,  to  vote  upon  the- 
questiori  of  his  puriishrnent.  It  pu1^5  the'  Presenters  in  the  attitude  of  accu- 
sers', committed  to  the  necessity  of  convicting  .the  accused,  in  order  to 
justify  -their  own  action  in  making  the  Presentment.  Under  such  a  Canon, 
w'e:have  been  compelled  to  grope  our  way  through  the  investigation  of. 
this  -case,  even  ivjtn  the  advantage  of  able  counsel  on  both  sides  j  some- 
times as  the  analogy  of  courts  of  law  would  direct.;  sometimes  as  courts-  . 
rnartial  should  furnish  the  model  j  "sometimes  as  the  common  law  would 
guide  us;  sometimes  as  the  civil  Taw  would  point  out;  sometimes  as  the 
.ecclesiastical  law  would  dictate  ;  and  sometimes  (and  on  one  or  -two  most 
important  particulars)  thrown  back  upon  the  direct  declarations  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  as  they  would  bear  upon  the  Case. 


.303 

'•-..•••  •         '    •  .'.  '• 

The  Court  itself  bears  the  twofold  character,  of  jury  to  try  the. cause, 
•  •and  judge  to  expound  the  law.  .       ••       . 

A  Presentment  is,  of  necessity,  founded  oh  ex-pffrte  testimony.  In  this 
•case,  but  one  or  two  of  the  parties  aggrieved,  have  ma.de  depositions  .for 
.themselves.  In  the  other.,  instances,  other  individuals  make  affidavits  of 
•What  they  know,  not  of  thctnselv-cs,  but  from  the  aggrieved  parties.  Thus 
Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Beare  make  the  ^affidavits  of  the  alleged  insults  to  their 
wives,  respectively.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Bdl.les,.  Dr.  Hawks  -makes"  the  affi- 
.davit  on  which  the  Presentment  is  made.  The. mere  Presentment,  there- 
Tore,  proves  nothing,  except,  as  its  •  allegations,  may  bo-  supported  by  the 
testimony  adduced  on  the  trial,  But',  the  affidavits  on  which  it  is  founded 
may,  in  my  opinion,  properly  be.  used  as  tests  of  the  accuracy  and  credi-  . 
bility  of  the  witnesses  concerned  ;  fof,;if  they  swear  before  the  Court-dif- 
ferently frorn  "what  they,  did  in  their  affidavits  for  the  Presenters,. such. diver. 
sity  must,  as  far  as  it  goes,  affect  unfavorably  their  testimony,  •  •  .  .. '  •  . 

The 'Court  is  to' try  the.  Presentment,  as  it- is  made.  It  has  nb  power  to 
make  a  new  presentment.  It  can  decide  only,  whether  the  presentment  is 
made  according  to  the  Canon  ;  whether  it  is" -so  made,  that  1he  charges  and 
'specifications  can  be  tried.  And,  if  these  points. are  settled efnrroatively, 
it" is  to  hear  .the  evidence .;, and j 'having  deliberated  upon  it,  to  decide 
whether- the. accused 'party  is,  or  is  not,  guilty  of  the  offences  as.  presented ;. 
and,  if  .guilty,  then  to  .award  a-nd  -pronounce'  the  sentence.  The  .Canon 
seems  to  tie  down  the  Cotj-rt  to  the  mere  question  of  guilty  or  not  guilty,  of 
the  •  offences-  as  charged,- and  does  not  allow  of -saying  any  thing,  but  yea  or 
nay  to  that  question.  .  •  '•; .  ...  '.-.'.  '.- L 

No  part  of  the  Presentment,  which  is. uncanoniea-lly  made,  can  properly 
bear  upon  that  part  which'  is,  canonical.  No  allegations,  rumors,  or  stories, 
which-  exist 'in  the  public  mind  out  of,  the  Court,  can  be  allowed  to  have 
influence,  as  evidence,  upon  the  opinion  I  arn  to  form  of  these  charges  and 
.specifications'.  They  are-  to  be  decided  by  the  evidence  actually  produced 
in- relation. to  them;  and. not  to/ be  affected  by  any  proofs-,  or  evidence, -or 
jjllegations  of  other  matters  of.  a  similar  kind,  which -may  or  may  .not  be 
true,  but  which  are  not' before  .me1, in  this  issue.  .  .  .- 

Neither  the  suspicion,,  nor  even  the  knowledge  of-  bad  motives,  or. folly, 
or  mistake  in  the  ulterior  origin,  or  actual  getting  up  of  the  Presentment, 
either  on  the;  part  of  the  Presenters  or  of  those  who  procured  and  laid  be- 
fore them  the  affidavits  on  which,  it, is  founded,  or  of  those  who  directly  Or 
indirectly  instigated,  suggested,  and:  fostered  the  proceeding  in  its- remoter 
origin,  can  be  allowed  to  have  .any  influence  in. judging  of  the  truth  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  the  form  and  shape  in  which  they  are-made 
in  the  Presentment.  Bach  charge  and  specification  must  stand  on  its  own 
merits  .and  claims  to  truth;  I  must  isolate  each  charge  and'  specification, 
as  if  it  were  .the  only  one  contained 'in  the  Presentment,  and  try  it--;' truth 
by  itself,— by  its  own  .testimony,  and  circumstances,- — by  what  applies  to 
it,  and  hot  by  the  testimony  and  circumstances  which  belong  to,  another 
distinct  charge  and  specification. 

Nor  can  the  deficient  proof  ..of  one  charge  and  specification  be  added  to 
the  deficient  proof  of  afty  other  charge  and  specification,  in  order  that  to- 
gether .they  may  amount  to  reliable  evidence,,  any  more  than  the  putting 
together. of  half  a  dozen. paralytics  would  help  to  make  them  all  sound,  or 
•even- -to  make  one  sound  man. 

In  considering  the  testimony,  it  becomes  necessary  for  me  to-  settle  in  my 


304 

own  mind  the  question,  as  to  the  number  of  witnesses  essential  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  each  charge  and  specification.  To  me  the  supreme  law  on 
this  subject  is  Holy  Scripture.  The  laws  of  m,an  may  vary  from  Scrip- 
ture on  this  point,  as  they  do  on  the  subject  of  marriage  and  divorce.  I 
could  not  concur  with  the  counsel  for  the  Presenters  in  declaring,  that  the 
law  of  God.  as  given  to  Moses,  was  not  so  good  for  the  elucidation  or  as- 
certainment of  truth,  as  the  common  law.  The  law  of  God  the  Father  in 
the  Old  Testament* — the  law  of  God  the  Son  in  the  New  Testament,f  as 
given  by  His  own  lips — and  the  law  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  given 
through  the  inspired  Apostle,  St.  Paul,  to  Timothy,'  exacting  more  than  one 
witness,  appears  to  me  to  leave  me  no  option  in  requiring  at  least  twoi 
witnesses  to  each  charge  and  specification,  however  differently  the  vary- 
ing law  of  man  may  permit,  or  enjoin.  I  can  conceive  of  no  fair  exposi- 
tion of  1  Timothy  v.  19,  "  Against  an  elder  receive  not  en  accusation, 
except  before  tveo  or  three  witnesses,"  which  can  justify  rne  in  disregarding 
so  explicit  an  injunction,  or  one  so  pertinently  and  obviously  applicable  to 
this  case.  Now  there  is  but  one  direct  witness  to  each  specification,  ex- 
cept  as  to  the  second  article. 

When  I  come  to  qualify  this  testimony  of  each  single  witness,  by  the 
circumstances  attendant  on  the  transaction,  instead  of  finding  them  to  fur- 
nish the  weight  of  an  additional  witness,  they  seem  to  me  to  weaken  the 
allegations  of  the  single  witness  by  their  inconsistency  with  the  other*alle- 
gations,  the  character,  and  the  very  nature  of  the  witness. 

The  question  being  a  question  of  the  extent  of  familiarities — whether  they 
were  such  as  of  necessity  'imply  the  criminal,  impure,  and  immoral  feel- 
ings and  desires  on  the  part  of  the  Respondent,  which  form  the  gravamen 
of  the  charge  against  him ;  I  must  look  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
to  ascertain  whether  they  are  capable  of  an  interpretation  consistent  with 
purity  of  feeling ;  whether  they  actually  occurred  to  such  an  extent,  as 
of  necessity  and  unavoidably  to  infer  such  criminality ;  and  whether  the 
circumstances  and  conduct  of  the  parties  show,  that  they  were  so  inter- 
preted and  understood  by  the  aggrieved  individuals  at  the  time,  and  by 
those  to  whom  they  were  then  made  known.  > 

•  I  place  great  reliance  on  incidental  evidence — that  which  comes  out, 
as  a  necessary  and  unavoidable  inference,  from  acts  of  the  parties,  or  from 
their  omissions  to  act,  where  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  if  the*  allega- 
tions  were  true,  would  require  'them "to  act.  Thus  the  law  of  virtue  and 
modesty  requires  resistance,  immediate  and  persevering,  to  the  extent  to 
which  the  power  of  the  party  can  go  against  aggression.  The  law  of  hon- 
esty requires  truth  to  be  told  firmly,  however  gently.  The  law  of  Chris- 
tian duty  forbids  connivance  at  crime,  just  as  I  understand  the  law  of  the 
land  forbids  compounding  felony.  If  the  acts  of  individuals — whose  virtue, 
honesty,  or  Christian  duty  is  assailed — conform  to  what  the  law  respec- 
tively requires,  it  confirms  the  testimony.  If  these  acts  and  proceedings 
do  not  so  conform — if  they  are  in  direct  -hostility  to  what  this  law  of  vir- 
tue, honesty,  or  Christian  duty  would  require — then  to  my  mind  the  testi- 
mony of  the  witness  is  proportionably  weakened,  and  its  credibility  may 

*  Deut.  xvii.  6.     Numbers  xxxv.  30.     Deut.  xix.  15. 

t  Matt  xviii.  16.    John  viii.  17. 

t  The  Second  Canon  of  1802,  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  which  continued  in 
force  until  1834,  required  two  witnesses  to  substantiate  any  charge.  See  p.  118  of  On- 
derdonk's  Edition  of  N.  Y.  Journals. 


305  4 

'..       --,.*. +    •   ^-        '  :        .-  ^  •    j-    AT--;.    -f.p    -yfj      -KitoMI 

even  be  wholly  destroyed.  Thus,  if  persons  of  high  character  and  stand- 
ing  in  the  Church  are  privy  to,  and  cotemporary  with  acts  in  the' Bishop 
which  appear  immoral,  and  have  the  power  of  presenting  him,  or  making 
an  effort  to  have  him  presented,  and  yet  do  not  take  such  step ;  I  must 
infer,  that  those  acts,  however  they  appear  now-  to  have  been  immoral, 
could  not  in  reality  have  been  so,  or  he  would  have  been  tlicn  arraigned 
and  tried.  The  fact,  that  they  were  not  noticed,  brought  to  light,  and  tried 
at  the  time,  by  those  whose  obvious  duty  it  was  to  take  such  steps,  and 
who  had  it  in  their  power  to  do  so,  forces  me  to  conclude,  either  that  the 
persons  were  comiivers  at  the  immorality,  which  the  high  character  of  the 
parties  forbids — or  else,  that  the  acts  were  at  the  time  capable  of  a  con- 
struction not  implying  immorality  or  guilt ;  and,  if  they  were  so  at  the 
time,  the  mere  lapse  of  time  could  n»t  impart  an  immorality  to  them, 
which  they  did  not  then  have. 

^Now,  since  the  year  1334,  the  Diocese  of  New  York  has  had  a  Ganon  for 
the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  (see  Canon  xvii.  of  1834,  of  Diocese  of  New  York ;) 
which  Caaon  gives  to  the  Convention,  if  in  session,  and  to  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee during  the  recess  of  the  Convention,  the  power,  by  a  vote  of  two- 
thirds,  to  present  a  Bishop,  and  have  him  tried.  Since  1837.  eight  Conven- 
tions have  been  held  in  this  Diocese,  and  no  steps  have  been  taken,  no  voice 
lifted,  no  vote  given,  no  motion  made  to  present  the  Respondent  by  the  clergy 
or  laity,  to  soma  of  whom  these  various  alleged  criminal  acts  were  known. 
Could  they  have  been  deemed  so  immoral,  so  criminal,  so  incapable  of  ex- 
planation, so  nakedly  outrageous  as  they  are  now  testified  to  be,  and  yet  not 
at  the  time  have  led  to  an  attempt  at  canonical  investigation  and  censure  by 
those  who  knew  all  about  them  ?  If  it  be  said  that  the  Convention  was  too 
cumbrous  or  uncertain  a  body  to  take  up  such  charges  and  act  upon  them, 
and  this  circumstance  deterred  them,  I  answer,  that,  during  the  recess  of  the 
Convention,  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese,  which  consists  of  eight 
persons,  viz :  four  clergymen  and  four  laymen,  have,  by  the  aforesaid 
Canon,  the  right  to  present.  If  it  be  said  that  the  acts  were  known  only  to 
a  few.  and  they  thought  it  best  to  say  nothing  about  them,  I  answer,  that  I 
must  believe  that  Dr.  Hawks,  Mr.  Lucas.  .Mr.  Holies.  Mr.  Butler,  in  1838, 
and  that  Drs.  Milnor,  Muhlenberg,  Wainwright.  Higbee,  Turner,  and  Messrs. 
Richmond,  Beare,  and  others,  have  not  only  failed  to  do  their  duty,  but  ac- 
tually conspired  (by  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  some  of  them,  in  regard 
to  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare)  to  connive  at  the  criminality  of  the  Bishop,  and 
conceal  his  guilt.  Some  of  these  clergymen  have  been  members  of  the 
Convention  of  the  Diocese  again  and  again.  Can  I  now  declare  to  be  im- 
moral, impure,  and  criminal,  acts  which  transpired  from  two  and  a  half  to 
seven  and  a  half  years  ago,  when  they,  who  were  cotemporary  with  them, 
and  knew  them  in  all  their  aggravation,  whose  duty  it  was  to  have  them 
punished,  if  of  the  evil  nature  alleged,  and  who  were  members  of  the  very 
canonical  body  which  had  committed  to  it  the  power  and  duty  of  originating 
action  in  the  case,  did  at  the  time  omit  to  take,  urge,  or  recommend  any 
canonical  action  in  regard  to  them  ?  In  the  absence  of  all  evidence  that 
such  omission  was  at  the  solicitation  of  the  Respondent,  and  with  the  testi- 
mony before  us  of  his  uniform  denial  of  the  truth  of  these  rumors  as  alleged 
against  him  whenever  brought  to  his  notice,  he  is  entitled,  in  my  opinion, 
to  the  inference  in  his  favor  that  they  were  not,  at  the  time  of  the  occur- 
rence, of  the  criminal  extent  and  immoral  character  now  ascribed  to  them. 

It  is  in  favor  of  the  Respondent,  that  the  witnesses  are  not  volunteer  wit- 

39 


nesses;  .that  they  come  reluctantly,  after  Orgings  ;  that  some  of  them  have 
tried  to  avoid  being  brought  forward  in  corrae'ction  with  these  charges.  None 
of  them  seem  to  have  acted  or  come  forward  with  any  strong  conviction  of 
the  highly  criminal  and  immoral 'character  of  the  Bishop's  acts,  as  charged 
•  in  the  specifications.  It  is  not  with  the  prompt  and  stern  sense  of  duty  to 
the  Church,  not  with  feelings  of  outraged  modesty  insisting  on  redress  and 
vindication,  that  they  appear.  They  are  dragged  into  Court.  While  the  re- 
luctance of  the  witnesses  to.  come  forward  is  most  satisfactory  evidence  that 
they  are  riot  knowingly  parties  to  any  conspiracy  in  this  case  against  the 
Bishop ;  it  does  at  the  same  time  as  forcibly  evince  to  my  mind,  that  the 
acts  alleged  could  not  have  been  of  so  clearly,  outrageous  and  immoral  a 
nature  on1  his  part  as  the  Presentment  declares,  or  there  would  have  been 
less  indisposition  to  appear  in  the  case. 

It  is  very  remarkable,  that  in  every  case  of  the  alleged  assaults  upon  the 
modesty  and  virtue  of  females,  third  parties  were  present  or  accessible  ;  and 
that  in  no  one  case  is  the  Respondent  testified  by  the  party  concerned  to  have 
been  resisted  as  effectually,;as  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case  he  might 
easily  have  been.  Mrs.  Butler  allows  the  Bishop  to  put  his  arm  about  her. 
Mr. 'Butler  sees  him  in  the  position  several  times,  and  does  not  think  it 
•worth  noticing;  tho'ugh  he  thought  the  Bishop  overcome  with  wide. at  the  mo- 
ment : — That  is,  a  husband  sees  a  man  whom  he  believes  to  be  '•  excited  by 
liquor"  embracing  his  wife  with  his  arm,  and  quietly  determines  that  he  will 
take  no  notice  of  it ;  when  a  word  on  his  part— a  single  word  of  even  re- 
Bpectful  admonition— might  have  arrested  the  proceeding  and  all  its  conse- 
quents!  Christian  duty  may  account  for  the  forbearance  from  anger  and 
excitement  on  the  occasion  :-it  does  not  account  for  his  utter  silence.  Mrs. 
Butler's  overstrained  and  enigmatical  language  about  the  Bishop's  hand  is 
not  only. contrary  to  all  nature,  as  a  reproach  .or  rebuke  for  criminal  fami- 
liarity with  her  person,  hut  might  have  been  called  forth  by  the  most  inno- 
cent-free'dprh,  that  paternal  manners  ant]  fatherly  intimacy  with  the  lady 
"would  allow.  In  the  case  of  Mjss  Helen  M.  Rudderow,  a  single  word  to 
Mr,  Richmond  would  have  intercepted  and  ended  the  most  extraordinary 
continuance,  for  nearly  half  an  hour,  in  an  half-open  carriage,  on  a  public 
highway,  during  a  general  conversation  in  which  all  the  persons  more  or 
less  partook,  of  the -alleged  insult.  She  says  she  felt  like  jumping  out  of 
the  carriage,  if  she  could  have  done  it,  to  save  herself  from  the  Bishop's 
hand  ;  and  yet  she  could  not  speak  a  single  word  .to.  preserve  her  person 
•from  insult,  though  alike  very  time  engaged  in  conversation  on  genera}  to- 
pics, both  with  Mr.  R.  and  the  Bishop !  She  feared  to  expose  the  Bishop  to 
Mr.  'Richmond  !  She  would  have  exposed  him  to  Mr.  R.  by  jumping  out 
of  the  carriage,  as  in  her  cross-examination  she  says  she  attempted  to  do, 
but  Was  afraid  to  expose  him  by  a  word,  which  would  have  been  equally  ef- 
fectual. In  the  case  of  Miss  Jane  (X  Rudderow,  by  simply  rising  and  leav- 
ing the  room  after  the  first  alleged  insult,  or  by  speaking  in  a  tone  to  attract 
her  brothers'  attention,  or  by  calling  them  in  .without  actually  exposing  the 
Bishop  to  their  indignation,  (the  thing  she  says  she  was  afraid  of,  and  gives 
as  the  reason,  for  making  no  outcry,)  she  had  been  safe.  But  she,  too,  is 
silent.  In  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare,  the  same  extraordinary  silence  under  a 
most  aggravated  alleged  insult  is  preserved  :  when  a  word,  even  an  offer  to 
take  a  seat  by  the  side  of  her  husband,  and  place  the  boy  behind  with  the 
Bishop,  would  have  shielded  her  entirely.  To.  me  all  this  appears  compati- 
ble only  with  a  very  limited  extent  of  familiarity ;  and  wholly  unacoounta- 


•Uv.     &         '•         307 

ble,  if  the  familiarity  was  actually  of  the  criminal  nature  and  extent  al- 
leged. 

I  listened  with  attention  to  the  analysis  of  the  testimony  by  the  learned 
counsel  on  both  sides,  and  regard  it  as  unnecessary  here  to  review  the  same 
in  detail.  Granting  all  allowance  to  the  ordinary  character  of  human  tes- 
timony, which  is  substantial  truth  with  circumstantial  variety,  yet  the  vari- 
ations of  the  testimony  from-  the  precise  charges  of  the  affidavits  and  the 
Presentment,  the  looseness  of  some  of  the  allegations,  the  inconsistency  of 
the  gravity  of  the  charges  with  the  quiescent  conduct  of  the  witnesses  under 
the  alleged  insults,  the  subsequent  intercourse  of  almost  all  the  insulted 
parties  with  the  Respondent  characterized  by  cordiality,  or  at  least  by  no 
change  in  demeanor  towards  him,  and  the  fact  that  each  specification  except 
one  rested  upon  the  testimony  of  a  single 'direct  witness,  could  not  but.  im- 
press me.  with  the  conviction  that  these  matters  were  resolvable  into  exag- 
gerations of  such  familiarities  as  are  liable  to  misinterpretation  and  highly 
imprudent,  but  not  implying  of  necessity  the  guilty  criminality  which  the  Pre- 
sentment charges.  I  could  not  but  be  struck  with  the  fact,  that  the  charges  in- 
the  affidavits  were  stronger  than  those  in  the  Presentment ;  that  the  terms  of 
the  Presentment  were  stronger  than  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  ;  so  that 
there  was  a  sort  of  diminishing  or  vanishing  scale  of  allegations  in  the  case, 
the  lowest  and  weakest  point  of  which  was  the  actual  testimony  produced. 
.  No  word  or  look  of  a  corrupt,  impure,  or  unbecoming  character  is  alleged 
by  any  of  the  witnesses  to  have  accompanied  the  familiarities  complained 
of — a  circumstance,  constituting  in  my  view  additional  evidence  of  the  ab- 
sence from  them  of  an  impure  and  immoral  character  and  that  they  were 
riot  of  the  criminal  extent  alleged. 

That  imprudences  do  not  imply  immorality,  and  that  even  acts  which 
.  bear  the  appearance  of  crime  may  yet  be  devoid  of  the  reality,  is  the 
ground  taken  by  the  Ecclesiastical  .Court  consisting  of  Bishops.  Mcllvaine, 
M'Coskry.  and  Kemper,  which  sat  in  October,  1837,  in  the  case  of  the  pre- 
sent Bishop  of  Kentucky,  (the  only  trial  of  a  Bishop  hitherto  known  in  this 
country,)  and  which  declared  him  guilty  in  several  instance  s  of  the  act  as 
specified,  but  without  criminality — even  using  in  reference  to  the  second 
.charge,  embracing  forty-two  specifications  and  affecting  moral  character, 
iri  one  case  the  following  language,  "  Guilty  of  a:  careless  and  unauthorized" 
statement,  but  acquitted  of  insincerity  ;"  and  in  another  case,  "'Guilty  of 
the  facts  alleged  ;  an  evil  motive  not  appearing,  but  indiscretion  manifest ;" 
ami  in  another  case,  "  Guilty  of  inconsistency,  reconcilable,  however,  with 
honesty  ;"  and  in  another  case,  "  Guilty  in  this,  that  the  facts  alleged  are 
true,  and  the  Court  cannot  reconcile  them  with  propriety  or  justice.  It  is 
believed,  however,' that  %ie  accused  did  not  urge  his  view  with  regard  to 
the  money  after  it  was  objected  to;"  and,'  in  five  other  instances,  "Guilty 
without  criminality — -incautious  language  is  proved  without  evidence  of 
wrong  intention  ;"  and  finally  upon  the'whole  charge,  as  covering  the  pre- 
ceding specifications,  declaring  as  follows,  viz  :  "  After  mature  considera- 
tion of  the  evidence  to  the  several  specifications  undercharge  2d,  the  Court 
find  the  accused  not  guilty  of  the  charge  ;  at  the  same  time  that  they  ckn- 
not  acquit  him  of  having  sometimes,  in  seasons  of  mental  excitement,  .used 
language  in  a  manner  so  careless  and  indiscreet  as  naturally  to  expose  him 
to  a  suspicion  of  insincerity,  which  a  wide  spread  and  long  established  re- 
putation contradicts."* 

*  See  "  Sentence  of  the  Court  in  the  case  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Ken- 
tucky, t«.  the  Rt.  Rev.  B.  B.  Smith,  D.  D." 


308 

.  That  general  good  character  should  weigh  down  mere  rumors  and  un. 
sustained  allegations,  appears  to  me  to  be  obviously  proper.  Flow  far  it 
should  weigh  against  even  sworn  statements  of  transactions  of  old  date, 
it  is  difficult  to  say.  That  it  should  have  some  weight  is,  I  believe,  al- 
lowed. In  the  case  of  the  consecration  of  the  present  Senior  Bishop, 
many  years  ago,  as  Bishop  of  Ohio,  against  whom  an  affidavit  of  some 
liighly  improper,  not  to  say  criminal  act  was  produced  by  respectable 
parties,  the  late  Bishop  White  took  this  very  ground,  and  would  not  op- 
pose the  consecration  on  account  of  such  affidavits ;  holding  that  testimo- 
nials produced  to  the  general  good  character  of  the  clergyman  assailed, 
Avere  a  sufficient  security  that  there  must  be  some  mistake  or  misappre- 
hension in  the  matter.  In  this  view  he  is  said  to  have  had  the  sanction 
of  the  late  Judge  Washington,  to  whom  he  submitted  the  grounds  of  his 
opinion.* 

In  looking  to  the  respective  characters  of  the  Respondent  and  the  ag- 
grieved parties,  I  do  not  institute  any  comparison  in  favor  of  either.  The 
Respondent  is  a  Bishop,  and  they  are  communicants.  Both  are  to  be  be- 
lieved as  declaring  what  they  think  to  be  truth.  They  affirm — the  Bishop 
denies.  Abstractedly,  I  put  them  on  an  equality.  I  ask  myself,  then,  has 
the  Bishop's  conduct  been  consistent  with  his  denial  ?  I  must  answer,  yes, 
A  uniform  denial  of  these  charges  as  idle  tales,  and  a  treatment  of  the 
parties  with  no  variation  of  manner  or  intercourse,  braving  investigation  for 
years,  openly  and  boldly  exposing  himself,  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  to 
obloquy  and  ill  feeling  from  some  who  harbored  tjie  evil  reports,  not  re- 
strained by  any  apparent  fear  of  offending  and  irritating  them  by  avowal  of 
views  of  theology  or  policy  to  which  they  were  known  to  be  inimical — this 
appears  to  me  to  be  the  conduct  of  a  man  not  conscious  of  liability  to  crim- 
inal charges  being  brought  against  him. 

On  the  other  hand,  how  has  it  been  with  the  aggrieved  parties  in  this  case? 
Has  their  conduct  been  consistent  with  their  affirmations  ?  I  cannot  say, 
yes.  They  have  repeated  their  respective  stories  again  and  again  in  pri- 
vate, alleging  grievous  insult ;  and  yet,  not  only  have  taken  no  steps  (ex- 
cept in  the  cases  of  Mrs.  Beare  and  Mr.  Bolles)  to  confront  the  Bishop 
themselves,  or  have  him  confronted  by  their  friends,  much  less  have  they 
sought  to  have  the  charges  officially  investigated  by  any  proper  tribunal ; 
but  they  now  most  reluctantly  come  forward  in  the  case,  and,  although  en- 
tirely independent  on  the  Bishop  in  every  matter,  are,  by  the  influence  of 
others,  dragged  into  Court,  to  testify  responsibly  what  they  have  so  often 
avowed  on  the  irresponsibility  of  private  allegation ;  and  not  only  so,  but 
have,  after  the  alleged  insults,  every  one  of  them,  (except  Mrs.  Butler,  who 
never  met  him  again,)  treated  the  offending  party  wth  more  or  less  respect, 
and  maintained  more  or  less  of  a  continued  intimacy  or  intercourse  with  him. 

If,  then,  on  a  comparison  of  the  allegations  of  the  two  parties,  I  should 
incline  to  place  more  reliance  on  the  denial  than  on  the  affirmation,  I  do 
but  conform  to  what  appears  to  me  to  be  the  dictate  of  common  sense. 

In  the  case  of  the  events  testified  to  by  Mr.  Bolles,  they  were  brought  to 
the  Bishop's  knowledge  by  Mr.  Bolles  and  Dr.  Hawks,  on  the  urgent  ad- 
vice of  Dr.  Taylor ;  arid  the  result  was  at  once  so  to  strip  the  charge  of 
the  aggravations  connected  with  it,  and  to  reduce  it  from  crime  to  impru- 
dence, that  now  the  Court  does  not  hesitate,  on  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bollea 
himself,  to  acquit  the  Bishop. 

*  For  this  statement  I  ain  indebted  to  Bishop  Kemper. 

- 


In  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare,  the  alleged  immoralities  were  brought  to  the 
Bishop's  notice  ;  and  the  result  was,  after  an  interview  between  the  Bishop 
and  Mr.  Beare  on  the  subject,  in  the  presence  of  sundry  clergymen,  that 
Mr.  B.  and  the  gentlemen  present,  on  no  solicitation  of  the  Bishop,  corns 
to  an  understanding  with  each  other,  that  no  farther  steps  are  to  be  taken  in 
the  case;  and  both  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beare  not  only  treat  him  with  respect, 
but  extend  to  him  the  hospitality  of  their  house.  So  that,  \vhenever  the 
Bishop  has  been  confronted  by  these  charges  at  the  tinse,  it  resulted  in  such 
explanations  as  to  avert  the  idea  of  criminality, 

I  do  not  consider  the  uniformity  of  the  Bishop's  denial  of  these  charges 
as  affected  by  what  passed  at  the  inte'rview  in  relation  to  Mrs.  Beare's 
case.  At  the  first  interview,  all  the  witnesses  testify  to  a  distinct  denial. 
At  the  second  interview  it  does  not  appear  that  the  charges  were  dis- 
tinctly renewed  in  such  a  form  as  to  call  for  distinct  denial.  The  ques- 
tion of  Mr.  Beare  was,  in  substance,  as  to  the  Bishop's  denial  of  his  wife's 
veracity.  The  answer  of  the  Bishop  was  naturally  directed  to  softening 
the  absolute  denial  of  her  veracity  into  a  form  which  would  not  irritate 
and  exasperate  Mr.  Beare  by  a  new  issue  as  to  his  wife's  credibility. 
He  tells  him  that  he  would  not  question  his  wife's  veracity,  but  that 
there  is  some  mistake  or  misapprehension  in  the  matter.  I  do  not  think 
that  this  can  fairly  be  considered  a  shrinking  from  his  denial  of  the  al- 
leged insults,  and  certainly  is  not,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  taken  as  a  con- 
fession of  guilt. 

The  charge  of  drunkenness,  or,  as  it  is  worded,  of  being  "improperly 
excited  by  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors,"  I  regard  as  disproved  by  inci- 
dental testimony  in  relation  to  Mr.  Peck,  as  it  fell  from  Mrs.  Butler.  The 
circumstances  which  proved  to  Mr.  B.  and  Mi's.  B.  that  the  Bishop  was  in 
the  condition  alleged,  were  his  tainted  breath,  his  high  spirits,  his  thick- 
ness of  speech,  and  his  talkativeness.  Now  of  all  these  Mr.  Peck,  being 
in  the  carriage,  was  as  cognizant  as  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B.  They  were  as  per- 
ceptible to  him  certainly  as  to  Mr.  B.,  who  was  on  the  front  seat  beside 
Mr.  Peck.  Moreover,  Mrs.  Butler  testifies  that  Mr.  Peck  was  peculiarly 
sensitive  to  improprieties  of  professing  Christians ;  that  such  improprieties 
constituted  the  obstacle  to  bis  conversion  ;  and  it  is  obvious  that  both  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  B.  were  very  anxious  that  a  good  impression  should  be  made 
upon  Mr.  Peck  by  the  Bishop,  as  Mr.  P.  had  recently  connected  himself 
with  the  Episcopal  Church.  From  Mr.  Peck's  state  of  mind,  then,  it  is  to 
be  supposed  that  he  would  be  alive  to  any  impropriety,  and  instantly  re- 
pelled in  disgust  from  the  Episcopal  Church,  by  the  know  ledge  of  so  gross 
an  instance  of  it  in  the  Bishop,  as  partial  or  even  suspected  drunkenness. 
But  was  this  the  case  ?•'  Mrs.  Butler  says  explicitly,  No!  To- the  ques- 
tion, "Did  the  driver"  (Mr.  Peck)  "continue  to  be  connected  with  the 
Parish  ?''"  her  answer  is,  "  He  did."  To  my  mind  the  inference  is  plain, 
that  the  account  of  the  condition  of  the  Respondent  is  exaggerated  by  the 
witnesses.  The  thickness  of  speech  is  explained  by  his  having  preached 
twice,  instituted  a  clergyman,  and  held  a  confirmation  that  very  day,  be- 
fore the  ride  commenced.  A  single  glass  of  wine  would  have  produced 
the  tainted  breath.  And  the  talkativeness  and  high  spirits,  somewhat  in- 
consistent with  thickness  of  speech,  are  easily  resolvable  into  the  well 
known  cheerful  and  courteous  disposition  of  the  Respondent,  and  his  meet- 
ing with  the  recently  married  son  and  daughter  of  his  old  friends,  and  who 
had  ridden  fifty  miles  to  meet  him ;  the  lady  herself  having  always  been 


310 

regarded  and  treated  by  him  as  a  daughter,  and  for  the  ordination  of  whose 
husband  he  was  to  take  a  journey  of  fifty  miles  by  night. 

The  result  of  the  whole  view  of  the  case  has  been,  not  only  to  make 
me  doubt  of  the  guilt  of  the  Respondent,  (and  with  a  doubt  upon  my  mind, 
I  could  not  be  justified  in  pronouncing  him  guilty,)  but  also  to  satisfy  me 
that  there  was  no  such  testimony,  supporting  each  charge  and  specifica- 
tion, as  the  Scripture  to  my  mind  requires  me  to  exact,  in  order  to  convict 
a  Christian  brother  of  criminal,  impure,  and  immoral  conduct,  as  charged 
and  specified  in  this  Presentment. 

While,  therefore,  I  can  see  in  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  on  these  several 
occasions  much  to  condemn,  as  imprudent,  foolish,  and  likely  to  be  misun- 
derstood and  misrepresented  to  the  injury  of  the  Church  ;  yet  not  seeing 
in  it  satisfactory  proof  of  an  extent  of  familiarity,  implying  criminal  and 
immoral  and  impure  desires  or  designs,  as  charged  in  the  Presentment,  I 
have  answered,  (my  conscience  and  judgment  concurring,)  to  the  question 
propounded  by  the  canon  in  regard  to  each  charge  and  specification  as  laid 
in  the  Presentment,  that  in  my  opinion  the  Respondent  is  not  guilty. 

The  sentence  of  suspension  pronounced  upon  the  Respondent  was  voted 
for  by  me,  because,  although  declaring  him  not  guilty,  the  Canon  requires 
me,  as  one  of  the  members  of  the  Court,  to  vote  upon  the  question  of  what 
penalty  shall  be  awarded  to  the  accused  party,  when  found  guilty  by  a 
majority  of  the  Court.  The  question  of  guilty  or  not  guilty  is  one  ques- 
tion, on  which  the  whole  Court  must  vote.  The  question,  whether,  if  de- 
clared guilty,  he  shall  be -admonished,  suspended,  or  degraded,  is  another 
question,  on  which  also  the  whole  Court  must  vote.  Believing  him  not 
guilty,  I  must,  if  compelled  to  vote,  give  my  vote  for  the  lowest  degree  of 
punishment,  viz.,  admonition.  Failing  to  procure  that  award,  and  compel- 
led to  vote  on  the  question  again,  I  vote  for  the  next  lowest  degree  of  pun- 
ishment, viz.,  suspension,  in  which  a  majority  of  the  Court  having  concur- 
red, it  becomes  the  canonical  penalty  awarded  by  the  "Court.  Failing  also 
to  obtain  from  the  Court  a  limitation  of  the  sentence  to  one  year,  and  to  al- 
low him  the  private  exercise  of  his  ministry  ;  I  am  compelled  to  acquiesce 
in  the  final  decision  of  a  majority  of  the  Court ;  which  suspends  the  Right 
Rev.  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  from  the  exercise  of  his  office 
as  Bishop,  and  from  his  ministerial  functions. 

W.  H.  DE  LANCEY, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  New  York. 

NOTE. — I  wish  to  put  on  record,  also,  that  I,  with  others,  opposed  the 
publication  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Court,  and  of  the  testimony  in  the 
case ;  because,  however  much  it  might  favor  the  Respondent,  by  showing 
the  precise  extent  of  the  charges  and  the  actual  character  of  the  testimony, 
to  publish  them,  such  publication  would  tend  to  injure  the  very  moral  and 
religious  feeling  of  the  Church  and  of  the  community,  which  the  act  of  dis- 
cipline upon  the  Respondent  was  designed  to  promote.  The  majority  of 
the  Court  decided  otherwise. 

W.  H.  DE  LANCEY. 


311 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

THE  Bishop  of  South  Carolina  gives  his  opinion  as  fellows  : 

I;  cannot  be  denied,  thai  oar  brother  the  Bishop  of  New  York,  from  early 
manhood  to  the  present  time,  when  he  has  passed  the  meridian  of  life,  has 
keen  unreservedly  and'zealously  deroted  to  the  service  of  the  Church  ;  and 
that  he  has  been,  and  continues  to  be.  eminently  useful.  But  there  is  "  no 
man  .that  sinneth  not."  and  there  are  sins  which  do  "  easily  beset  us  ;"  and 
if  one  person  be  liable  to  sins  of  the  flesh,  another  to  sins  of  the  world* 
covetousaess  or  ambition,  and  a  third  to  sins  of  the  devil,  falsehood  or  slan- 
envy,  hatred,  malice,  and  all  uncbaritableness,"  it  is  not  for  man  to 
decide  which,  is  the  greater  sin.  If  the  acts  of  sin  be  repented  of,  the  indi- 
vidual cannot  truly  be  called  an  immoral  man ;  and  the  evidences  of  a  true 
repentance  ace,  habitual  public  confession  of  sin  and  supplication  for  pardon, 
the  stated  participation  of  the  holy  communion,  and  amendment  of  life,  or 
in.  other  words,  living  "  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly.7' 

With  respect  to  the  specifications  before  us,  (except  one,  in  a  modified 
degree,  explained  in  my  vote,)  I  believe  our  brother  is  not  guilty.  As  to 
the  two  most  serious  specifications — to  suppose  a  man  would  attempt  the 
virtue  (for  it  amounts  to  that)  of  a  wife  in  the  presence,  hearing,  and  close 
by  her  newly-married  young  husband,  is  preposterous  and  ridiculous. 

Such  a  suspicion  might  possibly  be  entertained  of  a  madman,  or  a  fopl, 
or  a  reckless  creature,  entirely  without  character.  "  Quern  Deux  tvllperdere 
prau  dfmentat."  But  who  questions,  in  the  present  instance,  the  vigor  of 
intellect,  the  experience  of  life,  the  tried  integrity,  the  piety,  charity,  and 
•elf-denial. 

The  beginning  of  this  prosecution  was  not  right.  The  first  movement 
was  rumor,  (created  and  fanned,  as  I  believe,  by  carelessness,  or  folly,  or 
dislike,  or  revenge,)  which  -has  existed  for  several  years,  but  the  most  part 
of  it  never  met  my  ear  until  in  or  after  February,  1844  ;  and  I  understood 
the  said  rumor  had  been  in  circulation  among  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  the  Diocese  of  South  Carolina,  which  was  held  in  that  month.  The 
second  movement  was  previous  to,  or  during,  the  sitting  .of  the  General 
Convention,  which  was  in  October,  1844. 

The  first  ostensible  movers  to  direct  action,  were  not  the  persons  who 
considered  themselves  aggrieved ;  nor  were  they  members  of  toe  Diocese 
E  N  York,  especially  obligated  and  interested  in  the  matter,  but  of  three 
other  Dioceses.  The  frtt  application  for  redress  was  not,  as  it  should  have 
been,  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  but  to  the  House  of 
Bishops,  which  had  no  authority  in  the  case.  This  course  of  proceeding 
appears  to  me  unfavorable  to  truth  and  justice,  and  to  the  sacred  independ- 
ence of  each  Diocese  ;  and  too  favorable  to  party  spirit,  and  to  schism. 

The  Presentment,  in  addition  to  c:  immorality,"  names  "  impurity," 
which  is  not  named  in  the  Canon,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  have  been 
named  in  the  Presentment.  The  allegations  characterize  the  acts  in  a  way 
which  prejudges  the  accused,  and  adopt  epithets  which  are  indefinite,  or 
relate  to  manners,  not  to  morals.  The  alleged  offences  are  of  so  old  a  date, 


that  charity  requires  us  to  believe,  if  they  were  committed,  they  have  been 
repented  of. 

The  Apostle  Peter's  great  sin  being  repented  of,  was  not  only  forgiven, 
but  he  was  permitted  to  retain  his  high  office  ;  and  who  will  say  that  he  did 
not  exercise  it  to  edification.  ?  Charges  of  old  date  cannot  be  investigated 
satisfactorily,  by  reason  of  the  death  or  removal  of  material  witnesses,  and 
of  the  imperfection  of  human  memory,  and  perhaps  the  inveteracy  of  preju- 
dice. 

The  circumstances,  in  this  case,  constitute  an  a  priori  argument  of  great 
weight — such  as  the  character  and  age  of  the  Respondent,  his  paternal 
official  relation  to  the  parties,  the  place  and  the  time — which  authorize  the 
belief  that  there  must  be  misunderstanding  or  misconstruction.  Holy 
Scripture  (1  Thess.  v.  22)  sanctions  the  distinction  between  evil  and  that 
which  jnay  have  the  appearance  of  it.  Familiar  manners  are  peculiarly 
liable  to  misunderstanding,  by  persons  who  may  have  adopted  ascetic  or 
blue  law,  or  other  overstrained  notions  of  morality — by  persons  under  the 
influence  of  prejudice — and  in  those  places,  and  at  those  times,  where  and 
when  there  exists  a  fierce  conflict  of  opinion,  and  feeling,  and  interest ;  for 
example,  at  times  of  political  excitement,  in  our  own  country,  persons  of 
character,  till  then  unimpeached,  and  truly  unimpeachable,  have  been 
charged  with  the  most  improbable,  gross,  and  unnatural  crimes. 

The  witnesses  to  all  the  specifications  as  to  which  the  verdict  was 
"guilty,"  were  the  very  persons  who  considered  themselves  injured, 
and  who,  having  made  affidavits  or  statements  out  of  Court,  were  under 
strong  temptation  to  sustain  them,  and  therefore  cannot  reasonably  be  con- 
sidered impartial  witnesses  ;  and  moreover,  their  testimony  before  the 
Court,  their  statements,  as  set  down  in  the  Presentment,  their  affidavits, 
letters  produced,  and  conversations  attested,  exhibit  discrepancies  in  seve- 
ral very  important  particulars. 

The  conduct  of  the  complainants  at  the  time  of,  and  subsequent  to,  the 
alleged  improprieties,  has  been  remarkably  inconsistent  and  difficult  to  be 
explained. 

All  the  specifications  except  one,  viz.,  the  second,  were  attempted  to  be 
proved  by  the  testimony  of  one  person  ;  and  th'e  very  attempt  was  wrong, 
being  contrary  to  the  injunction  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  Bishop  at  Ephe- 
sus — "  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation  but  before  two  or  three 
witnesses." — (1  Tim.  iv.  19.)  And  the  Divine  Wisdom,  under  the  old 
dispensation,  laid  down  this  rule.  "  One  witness  shall  not  rise  up  against  a 
man  for  any  iniquity,  or  for  any  sin :  at  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses,  or  at  the 
mouth  of  three  witnesses,  shall  the  matter  be  established."  (Deut.  xix.  15 ; 
xv.  17  ;  Numb.  xxxv.  30.)  To  this  authority  the  apostolical  Canon,  the 
75th,  defers.  An  heretic  is  not  to  be  received  against  a  Bishop,  neither 
only  one  believer,  for  "  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  shall  every 
word  be  established."  It  cannot  be  said,  that  although  there  was  but  one 
witness  for  each  act,  yet  there  were  circumstances  corroborating  her  tes- 
timony ;  even  if  this  were  true,  still  there  would  be  only  one  witness,  and 
Holy  Scripture  demands  two  witnesses  :  and  the  credibility  of  each  one 
must  be  fortified  by  circumstances,  or  it  will  be  questionable.  But  in  the 
present  instance  the  circumstances  went  to  discredit  the  witness — that  is, 
to  manifest  defect  of  memory,  or  of  prudence,  or  of  consistency. 

It  might  be  asked,  are  the  memory  and  judgment  of  the  material  wit- 
nesses to  be  regarded  as  infallible  ?  Were  they  perfectly  free  from  pre. 


313 

judLe?  from  the  strongest  of  prejudices — that  connected  with  party  the- 
ology ?  Are  they  to  be  sapposed  capable  of  drawing  the  line  of  demarca- 
tion with  perfect  accuracy  between  mariners  and  morals — evil,  and  the  ap- 
pearance of  it  ?  Have  they  in  the  beginning  and  progress  of  this  matter, 
at  all  times  manifested  the  charity  which  thinketh  no  evil  ?  Is  it  given  to 
any  mortal  to  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents  '?  Are  we  not  told,  "  The 
Lord  seeth  not  as  man  seeth.  The  Lord  (that  is,  he  only,  he  exclusively) 
looketh  at  the  heart."  (1  Sam.  xvi.  7.)  Are  we  not  enjoined,  "Judge 
not  according  to  the  appearance?"  (John  vii.  24.)  The  scribes  and 
Pharisees  did  not  charge  the  person  in  John  viii.  3,  on  suspicion,  or  on  the 
ground  of  a  doubtful  act. 

But  waiving  the  scrutiny  of  the  testimony,  and  the  considerations  named, 
the  undersigned  insists  that  each  act  from  which  it  was  attempted  to  prove 
immorality,  each  act  which  gives  any  the  least  color  to  the  imputation  of 
impure  feeling,  has  but  one  witness.  In  its  sternness  the  common  law  al- 
lows of  a  single  witness.  But  an  ecclesiastical  court  ought  to  be  govern- 
ed by  the  law  of  Scripture — the  more  strictly  just  law  of  the  civil  code. 
It  is  inconsistent  with  justice  and  humanity  to  create  a  precedent  for  al- 
lowing character  to  be  sworn  away  by  one  person.  And  we  have  a  sol- 
emn warning  how  dangerous  it  is  to  depart  from  the  scriptural  rule,  in  a 
late  trial,  when  a  Presbyter  was  convicted  of  a  gross  crime,  and  ruined  in 
property  by  the  secular  court,  on  the  testimony  of  one  person ;  and  it 
has  since  been  fully  established  that  he  was  entirely  without  guilt. 

Good  will  come  to  our  brother  from  this  prosecution,  for  "it  is  good  to  be 
afflicted."  No  good  will  come  to  our  ecclesiastical  confederacy.  I  pray 
God  that  much  evil  may  not  come  to  it ;  that  it  may  not  be  shaken  to  its 
very  centre  by  the  proceedings  and  decision  in  this  prosecution. 

The  occasion  reminds  us  to  cling  with  tenacity  to,  and  to  be  thankful  for, 
the  divinely-ordered,  the  essential  independence  of  each  Diocese  ;  and  for  the 
blessed  promise  to  (not  a  particular  Church,  or  association  of  Churches, 
which  may  pass  away,  but  to)  the  Church  Catholic — the  Church  regarded 
as  one — that  she  shall  outlive  every  shock,  under  the  protection,  and  gui. 
dance,  and  favor  of  the  divine  Head  and  Lord. 

C.  E.  GADSDEN, 
Bishop  pf  the  Diocese  of  South  Carolina. 

NOTE.  It  has  been  published  in  a  pamphlet  as  follows  :  '•'  On  the  first  or 
second  day  of  the  Convention,  our  Bishop  was  informed,  in  the  presence  of 
several  of  his  Presbyters,  in  the  vestry-room  of  St.  Michael's  Church,  that 
a  resolution,  requesting  the  Trustees  from  our  Diocese,  to  move  in  the  Board 
an  inquiry  into  the  state  of  the  Seminary,  would  probably  be  proposed,"  &c. 

Never,  till  I  read  that  pamphlet,  did  I  know  there  was  any  the  least  con- 
nection with  that  "inquiry"  and  the  moral  character  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Pro- 
fessor. I  thought,  up  to  this  time,  (Jan.,  1845,)  that  the  inquiry,  and  "  the 
rumor"  referred  to  in  the  resolution  of  the  Convention,  had  exclusive  ref- 
erence to  errors  in  theology. 

40 


314 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  MARYLAND. 

•  -j ,   >  .  *  •  fc;i!  .      "V 

Having  been,  as  I  think,  improperly  hindered  from  making  the  following 
declaration  of  opinion,  at  the  time  prescribed  by  the  Canon,  I  avail  myself 
of  the  opportunity  allowed,  before  passing  to  sentence,  to  read  it,  with  a 
view  to  its  thus  obtaining  a  place  on  the  record  of  the  Court. 

W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM. 

In  the  Name  of  God,  Amen. 

In  my  opinion  the  Rt.  Reverend  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York, 
having  been  presented  by  the  Right  Reverend  William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bish- 
op of  Virginia ;  the  Right  Reverend  James  Hervey  Otey,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 
Tennessee ;  and  the  Right  Reverend  Stephen  Elliott,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 
Georgia,  as  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity  in  several  specifications ; — 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  first  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment: 

Is'not  guilty  of  immorality  and"  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  second  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  third  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment  :j 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  fifth  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  sixth  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  seventh  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

Is  not  guilty  of  immorality  and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  eighth  article 
of  the  aforementioned  Presentment : 

And  having  had  no  testimony  offered  against  him  in  support  of  the  spe- 
cifications in  the  fourth  article  of  the  aforementioned  Presentment,  is  to  be 
held,  and  is  by  me  believed,  to  be  not  guilty  of  the  charge  of  immorality 
and  impurity  therein  alleged. 

Given  as  my  judgment,  in  the»Court  assembled  in  the  case,  this  second 
day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-five. 

WILLIAM  ROLLINSON  WHITTINGHAM, 

Bishop  of  Maryland. 

The  reasons  of  the  above  opinion  and  judgment,  it  is  my  intention  to  fur. 
nish  hereafter,  for  entry  upon  the  record  of  the  Court. 

WILLIAM  ROLLINSON  WHITTINGHAM, 

Bishop  of  Maryland. 


315 


Reasons  for  the  Opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland,  in  the  case  of  the 
Presentment  against  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk, 
BisJiop  of  New  York. 

THE  Presentment  against  the  Bishop  of  New  York  comes  before  me  bur- 
dened  with  many  improbabilities,  which  must  be  taken  into  account  in 
weighing  the  testimony  by  which  it  is  supported.  Among  these  I  do  not 
reckon  the  improbability  of  heinous  transgression  on  the  part  of  one  so  high 
in  office  in  the  Church.  That  has  its  weight;  but  its  weight  is  no  greater 
in  this  case  than  it  must  be  in  the  case  of  any  Presentment  against  a 
Bishop  for  crime  or  immorality.  The  improbabilities  now  in  view,  are  pe- 
culiar to  the  present  case. 

The  Presentment  sets  forth  immorality  and  impurity  as  a  prevalent  dis- 
position of  mind,  evidenced  by  repeated  acts  spread  over  a  series  of  years. 
The  existence  of  such  a  disposition  of  mind  in  one  filling  so  public  a  station, 
circulating  so  constantly  in  society  through  the  wide  extent  of  so  large  a 
Diocese,  holding  free  and  habitual  intercourse  with  such  multitudes  of  peo- 
ple— by  no  means  all  friendly  dispossd — without  detection  and  exposure, 
through  so  long  a  series  of  years,  is  in  a  high  degree  improbable.  The 
manifestation  of  such  a  disposition  in  the  kind  of  acts  charged,  and  under 
the  circumstances  specified,  and  no  otherwise,  is  very  improbable ;  and  it  is 
equally  improbable,  had  more  overt  acts,  of  a  worse  description,  been  com- 
mitted, that  reports  so  long  and  so  extensively  known  as  those  concerning 
the  allegations  in  the  Presentment  have  been  proved  to  be,  should  not  have 
called  out  the  knowledge  of  them,  and  placed  them  within  the  reach  of  the 
diligence  of  the  suggesters  and  framers  of  this  Presentment. 

Another  kind  of  improbability  grows  out  of  the  number  and  silence  of 
the  persons  cognizant  of  the  allegations  made,  in  connection  with  their 
character  and  standing  in  society.  It  is  very  difficult  to  believe  that  so 
many  clergymen,  several  of  them  of  the  very  highest  repute  for  wisdom 
and  piety,  should  have  so  long  connived  at  such  guilt  as  is  charged  in  the 
Presentment.  If  true,  the  charges  of  that  document  are  charges  against 
every  clergyman  who  knew  of  them  and  kept  them  secret.  The  only 
ground  on  which  the  conduct  of  so  many,  so  intelligent,  so  respectable 
clergymen  can  be  justified,  is  that  they  did  not  believe  the  stories  which 
they  heard ;  or,  knowing  and  believing  certain  facts,  did  not  regard  them 
as  susceptible  of  the  coloring  put  upon  them  in  the  Presentment. 

Still  another  improbability  appears  in  the  conduct  of  the  individuals  pro- 
fessedly aggrieved.  One  such  instance  of  forbearance  as  both  Mr.  Butler 
and  Mr.  Beare  must  have  manifested,  had  Uhey  at  the  time  regarded  the 
treatment  of  their  wives  in  the  color  now  given  it,  is  sufficiently  unlikely — 
the  occurrence  of  two,  under  circumstances  so  nearly  similar,  is  greatly 
so.  It  is  not  to  be  explained  by  a  recurrence  to  Christian  principle,  operating 
similarly  in  the  hearts  of  Christian  men,  because  Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Beare 
did  not,  on  their  own  showing,  act  on  Christian  principle ;  they  did  not  tell 
their  brother  of  the  fault  now  alleged,  and  in  the  spirit  of  meekness  expostu- 
late with  him  ;  the  sin  which  they  chose  not  to  reprove,  their  charity  did  not 
cover. 

The  discretion  of  the  females,  in  all  the  instances  of  alleged  insult,  is 


816 

equally  extraordinary.  Placed,  in  every  instance,  in  situations  affording 
opportunity  of  instant  discovery  of  the  insult  to  the  persons  most  concerned, 
most  entitled,  and  best  able,  to  check  and  punish  it,  they  appear,  in  every 
case,  for  a  time,  and,  in  all  but  one,  throughout,  by  silence  and  abstinence 
from  every  mode  of  giving  an  alarm,  to  have  connived  at  the  conduct 
which  they  now  represent  as  an  insufferable  outrage.  The  subsequent  con- 
duct of  all,  Mrs.  Butler  alone  excepted,  is  similarly  strange  ard  inexplicable. 
They  exchange  civilities  with  him  by  whom  they  have  been  insulted. 
They  receive  and  render  courtesies.  In  every  instance  they  share  the 
friendly  meal ;  in  one  it  is  proffered  and  urged  upon  the  offender,  as  a 
guest.  They  gossip  with  others  of  liberties  and  improprieties;  but  to  the 
party  on  whom  they  charge  them,  they  give  no  hint  or  token  that  he  has  ever 
given  them  offence.  In  three  instances,  he  remains  in  utter  ignorance  that 
any  thing  which  may  have  passed  between  him  and  them,  has  been  taken 
amiss  ;  nay,  in  two,  to  satisfy  him  that  it  has  not,  he  has  the  strong  evi- 
dence of  an  unsolicited  visit  from  one  of  the  two  aggrieved  sisters. 

The  charge  of  immorality  and  impurity  in  the  acts  alleged,  acquires 
improbability  from  the  circumstaaces,  in  every  specified  case.  That  any 
one  possessed  of  common  sagacity  and  self-conduct,  (to  say  nothing  of  his 
bearing  the  office  of  a  Bishop,)  should  have  chosen  to  indulge  Jiis  evil  dis- 
positions in  circumstances  so  unfavorable,  is  hardly  conceivable.  An  open 
carriage  on  a  public  road,  (in  two  hi3tances  in  broad  daylight,)  in  the  com- 
pany of  other  persons,  (in  two  instances  the  husband  of  the  lady  alleged  to 
have  been  insulted,)  are  the  last  situations  in  which  one  would  suppose  a 
man,  having  a  character  to  lose,  likely  to  give  rein  to.  impure  desire,  and 
indulge  in  immoral  practices. 

The  time,  too,  in  every  instance,  increases  the  improbability.  After,  or 
before,  or  between  the  most  solemn  services  of  the  holy  religion  of  which 
he  is  a  minister,  the  Respondent  is  charged  with  having  grovelled  in  his 
impurity  and  immorality.  Precisely  when  he  might  be  expected,  if  ever, 
to  have  been  free  from  unchaste  desires,  even  if  habitual,  he  is  alleged  to 
have  given  them  their  range. 

The  mode  is  as  strange  as  the  time.  No  previous  or  subsequent  jovial- 
ity, frolicksomeness,  liberty,  or  even  lightness  of  speech  or  manner,  is  al- 
leged. Without  an  indecent  word,  without  a  hint  or  expression  capable  of 
evil  construction,  without,  so  far  as  appears  in  evidence,  a  look  or  gesture 
(apart  from  the  alleged  manipulation)  significative  of  impure  excitement, 
the  insults  are  represented  to  have  been,  deliberately,  coldly,  almost  sol- 
emnly perpetrated,  unexplained,  never  followed  up,  on  persons  the  most 
unlikely  to  permit  them,  at  times  the  most  incongruous,  under  circum- 
stances the  most  likely  to  bring  about  detection,  summary  punishment,  and 
deep,  irremediable  disgrace. 

Most  of  these  improbabilities  inhere  in  the  Presentment,  on  its  very  face  ; 
all  have  been  fully  brought  out  in  the  course  of  trial.  They  do  not  make  the 
charges  absolutely  incredible — incapable  of  proof — but  they  do  make  it  the 
duty  of  a  judge  to  require  the  very  strongest  and  fullest  testimony  for  their 
support. 

Noiv,  what  has  been  the  evidence  adduced  on  trial,  to  sustain  these 
charges?  In  every  case,  of  a  single  witness  only;  that  witness  in  each 
case  an  interested  witness,  and  in  each  case  discredited.  In  the  case  of 
Mrs.  Butler— Mr.  Butler  saw  nothing  immoral  or  impure,  that  he  felt  dis- 
posed to  complain  of  as  an  improper  liberty.  What  he  retailed  throughout 


317 

the  country  for  seven  years,  was  his  -wife's  story,  exaggerated  by  her  fan- 
cies, carelessly  heard  and  recklessly  repeated,  even  to  the  very  verge  of 
perjury.  Had  he  never  made  to  Mr.  Irving,  and  Mr.  Lucas,  and  Mr.  Hub- 
bard,  and  Bishop  Meade,  and  Dr.  Henshaw,  and  'Mr.  Gallagher,  and  prob- 
ably many  more  besides,  the  false  and  wholly  unfounded  representation 
that  the  Respondent  had  attempted  to  lift  Mrs.  Butler's  clothes,  this  Court 
would  probably  never  have  been  called  together. 

The  origin  of  that  falsehood,  to  my  mind,  utterly  discredits  Mrs.  Butler's 
evidence.  Hard  as  it  is  to  say  it,  justice  demands  the  expression  of  the 
opinion,  that  the  woman  who,  from  the  actions  'which  Mrs.  Butler  herself 
has  ascribed  to  the  Bishop,  could  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  "he  was 
about,"  or  "likely,"  "to  pull  up  her  clothes,"  was  in  a  frame  of  mind  ca- 
pable of  putting  gross  misconstruction  upon  innocent  or  even  accidental 
movements,  and  not  likely  to  make  any  allowance  for  any  freedom  which 
the  relation  (by  her  admitted  to  have  been  almost  filial)  bet  ween  herself  and 
the  friend  of  her  fathef,  and  of  her  own  childhood,  might  have  prompted, 
and  excused,  if  not  justified. 

Mrs.  Butler,  it  appears,  naturally  of  a  nervous  temperament,  had  been 
greatly  fatigued  by  the  long,  rough  ride  of  the  preceding  day  and  night. 
Again  undergoing  fatigue,  she  was,  in  the  physical  sense  of  the  terms,  irritable 
and  excitable.  Recently  married,  and  within  a  year  a  mother,  it  is  not  mar- 
vellous that  her  excitability  should  take  a  particular  direction.  A  single  mis- 
conception of  a  caress,  such  as  she  testifies  she  had  often  before  admitted  and 
received  from  the  Bishop,  in  equal  purity  and  unsuspiciousness  on  both  sides 
— a  misconception  perhaps  owing  to  a  jolt  of  the  carriage  moving  over  an  un- 
even road — might  originate  a  train  of  misconstructions,  and  the  active  imagi- 
nation, which  out  of  a  grasp  of  the  leg  (if  that  did  occur)  could  run  on  to 
divine  an  intention  to  lift  the  clothes,  might  easily  lend  significance  to  con- 
tacts and  pressures  growing  out  of  the  uneasy  motion  of  a  carriage  on  a  deep 
and  broken  road. 

I  see  no  evidence,  therefore,  of  immoral  and  impure  conduct  on 
the  part  of  the  Bishop  in  the  ride  with  Mrs.  Butler.  She,  the  only 
witness,  is  likely  to  have  mistaken  the  precise  nature  and  occasion  of  the 
acts  about  which  she  testifies;  of  their  intention,  (in  which  alone  the 
criminality  of  such  acts,  apart  from  the  occasion,  must  be  sought,)  she  has 
convicted  herself  of  incompetency  to  judge,  by  the  groundless  suspicion 
communicated  to  her  husband,  and  so  long  by  him  regarded  and  reported  as 
•the  statement  of  a  fact.  The  inherent  improbabilities  of  the  charge  all  weigh 
against  such  worthless  evidence,  and  lead  me  to  believe  Mr.  Butler  and 
his  brother  clergymen,  and  Bishop  Meade,  for  the  four  years  between  1840 
and  the  date  of  the  Presentment,  right  in  their  conduct,  whatever  may  have 
been  their  opinion  ;  and  to  pronounce  the  Bishop,  what  they  treated  him  as 
being,  not  guilty  of  the  first  specification  in  the  Presentment. 

The  testimony  in  support  of  the  second  article  of  the  Presentment, 
deserves  only  to  be  characterized  as  absurd  and  self-confutatory. 

The  Presentment  has  not  ventured  to  charge  inebriation,  or  intoxication. 
It  is  only  undue,  or  improper  excitement,  by  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors,  that 
is  alleged.  What  is  such  undue  or  improper  excitement  ?  No  quantity 
of  vinous  or  spirituous  liquors  can  be  taken,  without  producing  some 
excitement.  Is,  therefore,  all  or  any  excitement  improper,  and  present- 
able ?  If  not,  where  is  the  linTit,  within  the  line  of  intoxication  ?  The 
evidence,  in  support  of  the  specification,  is,  that  the  Bishop  "  talked  a 


318 

great  deal,"  "  talked  thickly,"  "  slept  heayily  during  the  night,"  (after  a 
day  of  fatiguing  duty,  while  riding  all  night,)  and  that  "  his  breath  smelt  of 
wine,  or  spirituous  liquors."  A  single  glass  of  wine,  taken  at  Mr. 
Munn's,  whence  it  is  said  he  started  on  that,  ride,  would  account  for  the 
latter  circumstance;  and  it  appears  impossible  to  account  for  it  otherwise;' 
for  he  did  not  join  company  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler  after  a  full  carouse, 
or  deep  potations,  but  at  the  close  of  the  protracted  religious  services,  in 
which  he  had  borne  the  principal  part,  without,  it  is  presumable,  any 
public  indications  of  disqualification  by  indulgence  ;  of  which  evidence 
might,  and,  no  doubt,  would  have  been  produced,  had  it  existed.  The 
"  much  and  thick"  talking,  weigh  little  against  the  evidence  that,  at  the 
same  time,  though  in  a  carriage  in  rough  motion,  and  with  fading  light, 
he  was  able  to  read  several  letters,  parts  of  them  aloud,  and  to  discourse 
intelligently  of  their  contents.  No  incoherency,  no  absurdity,  no  incon- 
gruity; above  all,  no  indecency  of  talk  is  testified.  The  "much"  talking, 
for  aught  that  appears,  was  the  innocent  indulgence  of  unsuspicious  frank- 
ness  ;  the  "  thick"  talking,  perhaps,  the  imagination '  of  those  whose  nice 
senses  had  detected  the  "fumes"  of  liquor;  or,  more  likely,  the  somewhat 
affected  articulation  of  organs  fatigued  by  hard  duty  through  the  day. 
The  second  specification  of  the  Presentment  is  wholly  unsupported  by  the 
testimony,  and  I  find  the  Respondent  not  guilty  of  the  same. 

The  third  specification  has  been  still  more  miserably  sustained.  Every 
circumstance  charged  has  been  disproved  by  the  only  witness  competent  to 
testify.  Nothing  alleged  in  this  article  took  place  as  there  recounted  ;  and 
what  did  actually  take  place,  was  regarded  by  the  witness  and  reporter, 
not  as  impure  and  immoral,  but  as,  at  the  utmost,  "  foolish  and  indiscreet ;" 
and,  certainly,  as  described  by  him,  requires  no  little  sensitive  suspicious- 
ness  to  give  it  a  color  deserving  of  that  light  censure.  On  the  showing  of 
the  very  testimony  adduced  for  the  Presentment,  the  Respondent  is  not 
guihy  of  the  charge  and  specifications  set  forth  in  its  third  article. 

The  fourth  article  has  not  been  tried.  The  fifth  and  sixth  articles,  teem, 
ing  with  improbabilities  as  they  stand  in  the  Presentment,  have  been  con- 
nected by  the  testimony  with  a  tissue  of  improbabilities  still  more  astoundi 
ing ;  and  yet  depend,  each,  upon  the  unsupported  -evidence  of  a  solitary 
witness,  without  the  slightest  corroborative  or  circumstantial  proof;  that  wit- 
ness, in  each  case,  being  discredited  by  her  own  conduct  at  the  time  and 
subsequently,  and  giving  evidence  on  the  trial  with  a  plain  disposition' to 
color  facts  and  keep  back  testimony. 

In  the  case  of  Helen  Rudderow,  it  is  improbable  that  a  ride  of  three  quar- 
ters of  a  mile  should  have  consumed  half  an  hour;  it  is  very  improbable 
that  during  all  that  time,  save  five  minutes,  a  man i sitting  on  the  back  seat 
of  an  open  carriage  with  a  lady,  should  have  kept  his"  hand  thrust  far  do.wn 
in  her  bosom,  pressing  and  grasping  it,  as  they  passed  through  a  street  on 
New  York  island,  at  mid-day;  it  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  a  lady  so 
abused,  possessing  any  degree  of  self-respect,  should  have  made  no  outcry  ; 
it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  this  should  have  taken,  place  with 
another  person  in  the  carnage,  within  hearing,  sight,  arid  reach  ;  that  per- 
son a  man,  a  clergyman,  the  frienS  and  pastor  of  the  .insulted  female,  and 
he  be  in  no  way  solicited  to  attend  and  interfere  ;  but  it  is 'most  of  all  im- 
probable that  that  person  should  have  been  the  Rev.  James  C.  Richmond* 
keen-sighted,  active,  observant,  as  all  who  know  him  know  he  is ;  and, 
that  he  should  have  been  in  conversation  with  both  the  parties  thus  strange- 


•   -  ;  319  •  •';•' 

ly  situated,  exchanging  questions  and  replies  with  both,  frequently  turning 
so  as  to  look;  the  alleged  transgressor  in  the  face,  and  should  have  seen  and 
known  so  little  of  the  matter,  that  while  his  diligent 'agehcy  is  recognisable 
in  every  part  of  the  proceedings  resulting  in  this  Presentment,  he  can  tes- 
tify nothing  even  corroborative  of  the  evidence  of  Miss  Rudderow,  which 
he  reduced  to  writing  and  procured  to  he  made  in  the  shape'of  an  affidavit. 

That  affidavit  discredits  the  witness  whose  sole  testimony  is  to  establish  this 
tissue  of  improbabilities.  By  swearing,  in  the  postscript  to  Jane  Rudderow's 
affidavit,  that  every  word  her  sister  has  'therein  said  is  true,  Helen  Rud- 
derow has  proved  her  own:  unfitness  to  'bear  testimony  upon  oath  ;  for  of 
most  of  the  statements  thus  confirmed  she  could  have  had  no  personal  know- 
ledge, and  some  are  incon'testably  disproved. 

The  conduct  of  Miss  Rudderow,  as  described  by  herself,  discredits  het 
testimony.  It  is  not  conceivable  that  any  virtaous  female,  treated  as.  she 
represents  herself  to  have  been  Curing  nearly  half  an  hour,  would  welcome 
to  her  home  the  man  by  whom  she  had.  been  outraged,  and  send  down  a 
younger  sister  to  bear  him  company,  and  "  entertain"  him  in  a  room  alone. 
The  woman  who  could,  do  so  is  unworthy  of*  belief:  the  woman  who  can 
represent  herself  as  having  done  so,  compels  me,  in  mercy  to  her,  to  reject 
her  evidence.  Such  testimony,  destitute  of  the  slightest  corroboration,  is 
greatly  outweighed  by  the  many  and  extreme  improbabilities  of  the  story 
Which  depends  on  it ;  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in  concluding  that,  of  im- 
morality and  impurity  in  the  manner  specified  in  the  fifth  article  of  the  Pre- 
sentment, the.  Respondent  is  not  guilty. 

With  relation  to  the  allegations  of  Jane  O.  Rudderow,  it  is  hard  to  say 
which  occasions  most  surprise,  the  tenor  of  her  testimony,  or.  the  absence  of 
other  testimony  to  support  it,  considering  what  she  testifies.  That  any  man 
of  decent  character  (setting  out  of  view  his  position  as  a  clergyman  and  a 
Bishop)  should  have  had  the  hardihood  at  first  greeting  a  young  woman  in 
her  own  house,  in  an  open  room,  within  hearing  of  her  two  brothers  grown 
to  man's  estate,  to  insult  her,  as  Miss  Rudderow  describes  herself  to  have 
been  insulted,  is  sufficiently  improbable;  that  sbe  should  have 'suffered  it, 
(and  that.;  too,  after  previous  warning  by  her  sister,)  without  outcry,  or  the 
slightest  intimation  to  her  brothers  that  their  company  was  desirable,  is  still 
more  improbable  ;  that  she,  and  her  equally  insulted  sister,  should  hav,e' 
quietly  dined  with  him,  and  suffered  his  company  after  dinner,  is  very 
strange  ;  but.  that  then  she  should  have  given  him  an  opportunity  of  conver- 
sation remote  from  others,  by  going  with  him  to  the  end  of  the  piazza  ;  that 
there  he  should  have  repeated  his  insult  in  the  presence  of  half  a  dozen 
others,  a  mother's  quick  eyes  among  thern,  without  protest  from  her  or  no- 
tice on  their  part ;  and  that  again,  a  few  minutes  afterwards,  in  a  small 
room  with  several  others  present,  he  should  avail  himself  of  her  going  to 
the  window;  to  rush  after  her,  pass  with  her  behind  a  painted  window-shade 
that  hung  four  inches  from  the  glass  of  an  outside  window,  and  beneath  that 
semi-transparent  covering  again  perpetrate  the'outrage  of  thrusting  his  hand 
far  down  into  her  naked  bosom  through  a  high-necked,  close-fastened  dress, 
without  resistance  on  her  part,  or-attracting  any  observation  by  the  company 
in  the  room,  whose  sole  and  honored  guest  he  was  j — these  are  improbabili- 
ties surpassing  belief.  Where  is  the  sister-in-law  who  was  in  the  piazza, 
and  in  the  room,  When  these  things  are  said  to  have  taken  placp?  She 
personally  appeared  in  Ceurt.  Why  did  she  give  no  evidence'?  Of  course, 
because  she  had  none  to  grye.  She  knew  nothing  of  all  this.  '  It  took  place 


•,  ^  320 

in  her  presence,  her  sister  says  ;  but  she  cannot  corroborate  the  testimony  of 
that  sister  by  the  recollection  of  a  single  circumstance.  In  the  affidavit  of 
Jane  Rudderow,  the  remark  of  her  mother,  now  deceased,  is  related.  She 
cannot  be  called  upon  to  give  testimony.  The  sister-in-law  who  can,  saw 
nothing,  heard  nothing,  knew  nothing  of  the  marvels  that  were  going  on  before 
their  eyes,  or  within  their  hearing.  Of  the  subsequent  conduct  of  the  Rudde- 
rows,  their  own  reluctant  testimony  makes  it  clear  enough  that  it  has  been 
inconsistent,  and  throws  discredit  on  their  alleged  grievances  ;  that  of  Jane 
is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  any  degree  of  womanly  sensitiveness  and  deli- 
cacy, if,  previously  to  her  voluntary  offer  to  call  upon  the  Bishop  in  his 
study,  to  which  Mr.  Dowdney  and  Miss  Rutter  testify,  she  had  really  received 
from  him  the  treatment  recounted  in.  her  testimony.  On  the  unsupported 
word  of  such  a  witness  it  is  impossible  to  receive  the  tissue  of  improba- 
bilities strung  together  in  her  story.  Without  other  and  better  proof,  I  can. 
not  but  believe  the  Respondent  not  guilty  of  the  immorality  and  impurity 
charged  against  him  in  the  sixth  article  of'the  Presentment. 

The  seventh  and  eighth  articles,- distinct  allegations,  but  parts  of  the  same 
story,  have  the  peculiarity  of  a  show  of  support  for  the  testimony  of  the 
single  witness  on  whom,  in  that,  like  all  the  others,  they  depend.  If  the 
allegations,  as  they  now  stand  in  the  Presentment,  were  ever  made  to 
the  Respondent,  and  admitted  by  him,  they  would,  by  that  confession,  be 
sufficiently  proved.  It  has  been  contended  that  they  were  so  made,  and 
admitted  ;  and  to  that  effect,  the  testimony  of  Drs.  Milnor  and  Muhlenberg 
has  been  adduced.  On  the  other  hand,  the  united  testimony  of  all  present, 
that  at  the  interview  when  they  were  first  made  known  to  the  Respondent, 
he  denied  them  ;  the  admitted  uncertainty  whether  that  denial  had  refer- 
ence to  the  criminal  character  given  to  what  passed  between  him  and  Mrs. 
Beare,  or  to  the  attempted  statement  of  what  did  pass ;  the  discrepant  testi- 
mony of  Drs.  Milnor  and  Muhlenberg,  as  to  the  way  in  which  that  state- 
ment was  made  ;  the  clear,  distinct,  and  full  evidence  of  Dr.  Higbee,  as  to 
his  impression  of  the  denial  made  at  the  first  interview,  and  the  kind  of  ad- 
mission made  at  the  second  ;  and  the  evident  treacherousness  of  Dr.  Mil- 
nor's  memory,  which  has  betrayed  him  into  contradictory  statements  rela- 
tive to  a  matter  of  no  less  importance  than  his  own  faithfulness  to  the  agree- 
ment or  understanding,  after  those  interviews,  to  make  no  further  mention, 
of  the  transaction  ;  afford  abundant  ground  tto  doubt  the  correctness  of  Dr. 
Milnor's  uncorroborated  recollections,  and  to  acquiesce  in  the  impression  of 
Dr.  Higbee,  which  alone  is  reconcilable  with  what  all  admit  to  have  taken 
place  between  Dr.  Milnor  and  the  Bishop,  at  the  close  of  the  second  inter- 
view, and  with  the  honesty  and  piety  of  character  of  all  four  clergymen 
concerned ;— to  wit,  that  the  Bishop  did  not  admit  the  allegations  as  implying 
guilt,  but  sought  to  reconcile  a  difference,  which  he,  in  the  most  charitable 
view  of  the  conduct  of  his  accuser,  attributed  to  mistake  and  misconstruction. 

The  charge  of  impurity  and  immorality  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare,  then, 
and  the  specifications  on  which  that  charge  is  grounded,  still  rest  on  the 
single  testimony  of  Mrs. 'Beare.  When  presented  to 'the  Respondent  by  his 
brethren  of  the  clergy,  he  denied  them  with  indignation  ;  and  there  is  not 
the  slightest  evidence  to  fix  what  extent  he  meant  to  give  to  his  subsequent 
declaration  that  he  would  not  impeach  the  veracity  of  Mrs.  Beare. 

What  he  would  not  do,  Mrs.  Beare  herself  has  compelled  this  Court  to 
do,  by  her  unfortunate  statements  concerning  a  written  document  in  which 
she  had  set  down  the  particulars  of  her  story.  The  witness  who  could  poa- 


321 

itively  declare  of  such  a  document,  "  it  is  destroyed/'  and  then,  within  five 
minutes,  be  brought,  by  the  searching  interrogatories  of  Counsel,  to  admit, 
in  so  many  words,  "  It  is  not  destroyed,"  cannot  claim  credit  for  veracity: 
Neither  does  Mrs.  Beare's  very  remarkable  want  of  memory  concerning 
transactions  which  one  would  suppose  she,  of  all  others,  would  be  least 
likely  to  .forget  in  any  their  minutest  circumstances — transactions  sub- 
sequently to-  her  alleged  insult,  with  him  by  whom  she  complains  of  having 
been  insulted — wear  the  appearance  of  veracity.  .It  is  as  hard  to  believe 
that  she  and  her  husband  could  have  so  entirely  forgotten  all  that  sufficient 
witnesses  h.ave  proved  to  have  passed  between  them  and  the  Bishop,  subse- 
quently to  the  transactions  now  made  ground  of  accusation  against  him, 
'  as  it  is  to  conceive  how  such  things  could  have  passed  between  them  and 
him,  had  they  at  the  time  believed  him  to  be  guilty  of  the  immorality  and 
impurity  now  laid  to  his  charge. 

Whether  the  manner  of  the  Bishop  in  the  morning's  ride  with  Mrs.  Beare, 
which  has  been  made  the  subject  of  the  seventh  article  of  the  Presentment, 
.  was  not  too  free  and  caressing  far  the  lively  sensibility  of  that  lady ; 
whether  it  was  not  accounted  for,  and  justified  by  the  more  than  ordinary 
intimacy,  and  paternal  intercourse,  of  the  Bishop  with  her  husband  from 
his  boyhood,  and  the  consequent  filial  relation  of  the  wife  to  the  husband's 
.old  friend  and  second  father; — these  are  questions  not  for  this  Court  to  solve. 
Our  business  is  with  the  extent  and  intentions  of  the  freedoms  taken.  Were 
they  immoral  in  their  nature  ?  Were  they  impure  in  their  design  ?  Mrs. 
Beare's  own  account  of  them  does  not  prove  that  either  she  or  her  husband 
so  regarded  them,  when  she  first  made  her  complaint  to  him.  She  thought 
them  "  unbecoming,"  "too  familiar;''  she  did  not  like  them  :  and  he  sym- 
pathized with  his  newly-married  wife,  as  was  natural.  But  did  they  think 
the  acts  criminal  ?  They  do  npt  *ay  so.  They  cannot :  for  if  they  did, 
the  conduct  of.  both,  for  the  remainder  of  the  day  and  evening,  would 
be  set  in  an  extraordinary  light ;  and  the  husband,  who.,  knowing,  and 
believing  his  wife  to  have  been  grossly  insulted  in  the  day-time,  had 
placed  her  again  that  night  in  the  situation  that  had  exposed  her  to  the  in- 
sult, would  deserve  a  name  harsher  than  I  care  to  introduce.  Mr..  Beare 
did  not  believe  the  story  now  before,  the  Court,  when  he  took  his  wife  home 
from  Mr.  Franklin's  in  the  evening  ride,  which  is  made  the  subject  of  the 
eighth  specification.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  believed  it,  except 
so  far  as  to  be  sure  that  it  had  foundation,  to  be  confident  in  his  wife's  ve- 
racity, to  acquit  her  of  intentional  false  witness.  Now  it  is  observable  that 
Mrs.  Beare,  like  Mrs.  Butler,  was  newly-married  w-hen  tTiese  occurrences 
took  place.  A  new  station  in  life  had  brought  with  it  new  not'ions  of  propriety, 
of  dignity,  of  decency.  What,  as  ia  Mrs.  Butler's  case,  the  girl  might  have 
suffered  without  a  thought  of  impropriety,  the-  bride  regarded  in  a  different 
light ;  the  caresses  of  a  parent  were  no  longer  uppermost  in  her  mind,  and 
what,  under  other  circumstances,  might  have  been  taken  as  they  were  meant, 
for  tokens  of  paternal  fondness,  became  disgusting  under  apother  construc- 
tion, lent 'them  by  the  prevailing  current  of  her  affections.  That  Mrs. 
Beare,  having  once  misconstrued  the  attention  of  the  Bishop,  is  capable  of 
so  framing  her  narrative  of  what  then  and  subsequently  transpired,  as  to 
make  it  bear  her  out  in  her  misconstructions,  the  whole  tenor  of  her  tes- 
timony too  plainly  shows.  Ingenuousness,  frankness,  and  candor,  are  not  the 
characteristics  of  that  testimony.  It  was  painful  to  listen  to  the  effortsof  Coun- 
sel to  obtain  from  this  witness  direct  and  positive  answers  on  topfcs  which  it 

•41 


was  her  interest  to  avoid.  There  is  too  much  in  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Beare 
that  looks  like  convenient  forgetful  ness,  evasion,  and  coloring  by  partial 
and  imperfect  statements,  to  leave  a  doubt  that  when  she  had  once  commit- 
ted herself  to  her  husband  as  to  the  character  of  the  Bishop's  familiarities, 
she  was  capable  of  viewing  and  representing  every  thing  that  might  sub- 
sequently occur,  in  the  aspect  most  favorable  to  her  declared  anticipations. 
Into  the  details  of  her  representation  of  the  occurrences  in  the  second  ride. 
I  do  not  care  to  go,  for  obvious  reasons.  Setting  aside  moral  improbabili- 
ties, there  are  circumstantial  difficulties  in  her  statement  that  will  not  bear 
examination  ;  and  that  statement  has  the  additional  disadvantage  of  being 
set  forth  quite  differently  in  her  own  evidence,  in  tlie  affidavit  of  her  hus- 
band, and  in  the  recollections  of  Dr.  Muhlenberg — no  two  agreeing  in  the 
minute  details  which  alone  give  explicitness  and  atrocity  to  the  alleged 
offence.  I  cannot  receive  such  facts,  from  such  a  witness,  under  the  wit- 
ness's own  coloring.  Whatever  may 'have  taken  place  between  the  Bish- 
op and  Mrs.  Beare  on  that  occasion,  I  find  no  adequate  support  for  the 
charge  of  designed  indecency  on  his,  part,  improbable  as  the  person,  the 
time,  and  the  circumstances  make  it.  There  must  be  more  and  better  evi- 
dence, before  I  can  convict  the  Respondent  of  the  immorality  and  impurity 
alleged  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  specifications  of  the  Presentment.  To 
my  mind  he  appears  now,  what  I  believe  him  to  have  appeared  to  the  four 
clergymen  who  first  brought  the  allegations  to  his  notice,  not  guilty  of  sileli 
immorality  and  impurity. 

The  specifications  severally  unproved,  cannot  jointly  make  up  proof  of 
guilt.  To  do  that,  the  whole  must  be  regarded  as  one  fact,  of  which  each 
specification  then  becomes  an  essential  circumstance  :  and  the  same  degree 
of  proof  becomes  necessary  to  establish  such  essential  circumstance,  that  is 
requisite  for  the  establishment  of  the  entire  fact  which  it  is  taken  to  make  up. 

The  failure  of  proof  under  each  specification,  1ms  destroyed  an  essential 
circumstance  of  the  general  charge  ;  and  the  failure  under  all,  has  left  that 
charge  whollydevoid  of  existence,  and  therefore  incapable  of  proof.  Guilt  has 
not  been  proved  in  either  of  the  specifications  alleged  in  the  Presentment ; 
it  would  be  equally  absurd  and  unjust  to  consider  it  as  proved,  apart  from 
the  specifications  and  out  of  them.  The  Respondent  is  not  guilly  of  immo- 
rality and  impurity,  as  specified  in  the  first. 'second,  third,  fifth,  sixth,  sev- 
enth, and  eighth  articles  of  the  Presentment.  Not  having  been  tried  on  the 
fourth,  there  remains  no  specification  of  the  alleged  immorality  and  im- 
purity. He  is,  therefore,  not  guilty  of  the  charge  at  all. 

This  being  my  opinion,  grounded  on  the  reasons  adduced,  (among  many 
others  that  might  be  given,)  it  is  unnecessary  that  I  should  examine  the  ques- 
tion whether  these  accusations,  being  sustained  each  only  by  a  single  witness, 
can  be  entertained  at  all  by  this  Court.  Other  members  of  the  Court  havu 
learnedly  and  conclusively  shown  that  they  cannot.  For  me,  it  is  enough 
to  find  them  all  improbable,  and  each  unproved,  to  be  assured  that,  whether 
rightly  entertained  or  not,  they  must  needs  be  dismissed,  on  the  principles  that 
govern  all  human  judgments  in  the  investigation  of  the  evidence  of  facts 
and  motives. 

WILLIAM  ROLLINSON  WHITTINGHAM, 

Bishop  of  Maryland. 


.      OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  DELAWARE. 

THIS  Presentment  before  the  Court  contained  nine  articles.  Of  these, 
the  9th  was  struck  out  by  the  Court,  as  not  possessing  that  particularity  of 
tune,  place,  and  circumstances,  which  the  Canon  requires.  Upon  the  4th 
article,  no  evidence  has  been  brought  before  the  Court  ;  the  citation  issued 
to  obtain  the  attendance  of  a  witness  being  disobeyed,  and  that  specification 
is,  therefore,  to  be  left  out  of  its.  consideration. 

There  remain  the  specifications  in  Articles  I.,  II..  III.,  V.,  VI.,  VII.. 
and  Y1IL,  upon  which  proof  has  been  offered,  and  upon  which  each  mem- 
ber of  the  Court  is  to  pronounce  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  accused  be 
g*Uty,  or  not  gu&y. 

Upon  these  specifications,  I  pronounce  as  follows  :  viz..  upon 
Article  I.  —  Guflty. 
"       II.—  Guilty. 
"       m.  —  Not  guilty. 
«       V.—  Goaty. 
«       VI.—  Guflty. 
«       VH.—  Guflty. 


As  it  regards  the  above  charges,  the  proof  presented  in  relation  to  Arti- 
cle III.  does  not  substantiate  the  specification.  Evidence  was  presented  that 
the  Respondent  had  behaved  hi  a  foolish  and  indiscreet  manner,  in  a  public 
stage,  but  not  that  he  had  committed  the  most  objectionable  acts  charged 
in  the  article. 

The  specification  -in  Article  II.  is  of  an  ottence  of  a  different  nature  from 
that  charged  in  the  other  articles,  and  being  the  single  offence  of  the  kind, 
and  having  occurred  more  than  seven  years  ago;  although,  as  it  was  satis- 
factorily proved  to  my  mind,  I  am  compelled  to  pronounce  the  Respondent 
guilty,  it  has  little  influence  upon  the  determination  of  the  sentence  recom- 


The  specifications  in  the  other  articles,  viz..  Art.  I.,  V.,  VI.,  VII.,  VIII.. 
are  all  of  offences  of  a  similar  class,  brought  forward  in  support  of  the  gen- 
eral charge  of  immorality  and  impurity,  set  forth  in  the  opening  paragraph 
of  the  Presentment,  and  alleged  to  have  occurred  in  connection  with  four 
different  persons. 

The  verdict  which  I  have  felt  it  a  solemn  duty  to  pronounce  upon  these 
specifications,  is  grounded  upon  the  direct  and  distinct  attestation  of  credi- 
•  We  witnesses  to  all  the  material  facts  therein  set  forth  ;  which  facts  being 
satisfactorily  proved,  the  deduction  of  guilt,  as  charged  in  the  Presentment. 
is  unavoidable.  The  witnesses  who  testified  to  the  truth  of  these  facts 
before  the  Court,  are  all  of  them  communicants  of  the  Church  ;  persons'of 
unimpeacbed  character,  and  several  of  them  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  Their 
testimony  has  been  subjected  to  a  cross-examination  of  the  most  extended, 
minute,  and  searching  kind,  without  impairing  its  credibility.  All  those 
circumstances  which  are  considered  important  ior  the  ascertainment  of 


truth,  such  as  previous  character,  manner  of  testifying,  <kc,,  and  especially 
subjection  to  cross-examination,  were  such,  in  the.  present  case,  as-tojcon- 
firm  very  strongly  the  credibility  of  their  evidence.  This  evidence  is,  itself, 
so  positive  and  distinct,  and  comes  from  those  who  must  be  cognizant*  cer- 
tainly, of  the  truth  or  untruth  of  the  facts  charged,  that  it  is  ttnpossible  to 
avoid  one  of  these  conclusions :  either,  on  the  one  hand,  that  those  facts  are 
sustained ;  or,  on  the  other,  that  the  witnesses  have  deliberately  perjured 
themselves  upon  this  solemn  occasion.  There  seems  to  me  no  door  of 
escape  from  one  or  other  of  these  deductions. 

The  chief  reasons  urged  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent,  or  otherwise 
suggested  on  his  behalf  to  the  Court  durjng  the  progress  of  the  trial,  are  the 
following : 

I.  The  extreme  improbability  of  such  acts  being  committed  by  a  per- 
son in  the  station  of  the  Respondent,  and  under  circumstances  which  made 
him. so  liable  to  detection  and  exposure.     That  there  is  such  improbability 
is  not  to  be  denied,  and  the  benefit  of  the  presumption  thence  arising  is  to . 
be  given,  without  doubt,  to  the  Respondent.     It  furnishes  a  reason  for  re- 
quiring distinct,  positive,  and  uriimpeached  testimony  to,  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion. But 'antecedent  improbability  cannot  be  allowed  such  weight  as  to  de- 
stroy the  force  of  direct  testimony.     The  commission  of  any  immoral  act  by 
a  minister  of  the  Church  of  Christ  must  be  considered  as  improbable,  but  in 
spite  of  this  presumption,  it  is  found  necessary  to  provide  canons-of  discipline 
for  the  clergy. 

The  question  for  the  Court  to  decide  is,  whether,  in  the  exercise  of  a 
sound  discretion,  giving  its  due  and  reasonable  influence  to  the  presumption 
of  innocence,  arising  from  this  and  other  sources,  the  charge  is  supported  by 
sufficient  proof.  In  the  estimate  of  this  proof,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  question  of  improbability,  in  reference  to  the  peculiar  concomitant  cir- 
cumstances of  each  case,  applies  as  welj  to  the  testimony  of  witnesses  as  to 
the  Respondent's  innocence.  It  is  to  be  reasonably  supposed  that  a  fabri- 
cated story  will  be  invested  only  with  such  incidents  as  are  most  probable, 
and  not  embarrassed  by  the  addition  of  such  as  are  unimportant  to  the  object 
hi  .view,  not  likely- to  occur,  and  opening  each  of  them  a  door  for  contradic- 
tion and  detection. 

II.  A  second  argument  is  the  length  of  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the 
facts  charged  occurred.     This  objection  cannot  well  apply  to  the  most  re- 
cent specifications  contained  in  articles  seventh  and  eighth.  .  It  applies  with 
most  force  to  the  case  charged  in  article  first — that  of  Mrs.  Butler.     Did  the 
latter  case  stand  alone,  the  weight  of  this  objection  would  be  greatly  en- 
hanced.    The  principle,  however,  that  where  there  are  several  charges  of 
a  similar  nature,  the  chain  may  be  carried  back  beyond  what  wou-ld  be -a 
proper  limit  to  the  more  remote,  if  single  and  alone,  is  one  obvious  and  well 
established.  A  single  item  of  a  long  account,  falling  within  the  time  fixed  by  . 
the  statute  of  limitation,  takes  the -whole  account  out  of  the  operation  of  the 
statute.  „• 

•  The  Canon  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  provides  no  period  of  limitation. 
Weighty'  reasons  may  be  urged  why  there  should  be  no  such  -provision. 
A  violation  of  the  consecration  vow  of  a  Bishop  may  be  likened  to  a  breach 
of  a  trust  confided  ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  a  much  longer  period  of 
limitation  applies  in  law  to  casfes  of  that  nature:  Neither  can  it  be  con- 
ceded that  the -neglect  of  those  persons  immediately  cognizant  ^f  the  of- 
fence to  take  measures  for  investigation  and  punishment,  should  conclude  the 


32fi 

Church  at  large,  deeply  interested  in  the  purity  and  good  conduct  of  each 
of  its  chief  ministers,,  and  ignorant  for  a  length  of  time  of  said  miscoiv 
duct. 

In  the  absence  of  any  provision  of  limitation  in  the  Canons  of  the  Church, 
the  Court  have  no  right  to  make  one.  AU  that  can  be  reasonably  required 
in  the  present  case  is,  that  all  due  caution  should  be  exercised  in  relation 
to  the  proof  of  the  more  remote  charges  ;  and  that  if  .the  more  .recent  ac- 
cusations should  be  disproved,  and  only  the  more  remote  established,  thi* 
fact  should  have  its  proper  influence  in  the  determination  of  the  sen- 
tence. 

III.  Another  argument  has  been  strongly  urged  upon  the  Court  from  the 
provision  of  the  Levitical  law,  and  the  direction  given  by  the  Apostle. 
1  Tim.  v.  19 :  "  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation  but  before  two 
or  three  .witnesses ;"  and  the  same  rule  as  adopted  by  the  diyil  law,  which 
is  in  use  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  England. 

Respecting  this  argument  I  remark — 

1.  That  it  does  not  apply  to  the  charges  contained  in  Arts.  I.,  VII.-,  and 
VIII.     To  the  first  of  these  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Butler  both  testified.     The  prin- 
ciple in  question  does  not  require  that  each  shall  testify  to  all  and  singular 
of  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  offence  charged. 

•In  the  case  of  Mrs.  Beare,  contained  in  Arts.  VII.  and  VIII.,  there  is 
before  the  Court,  in  addition  to  the  testimony  -of  Mrs.  Beare,  ^he  distinct 
admission  of  the  facts  charged,  by  the  Respondent  himself,- testified' to  by 
three  credible  witnesses.  This  is  evidence  of  the  strongest  kind.. 

2.  The  requirement  of  two  witnesses  to  an  accusation  is  not  equivalent 
to  requiring  two  witnesses  to  each  particular  charge  contained  ui  -the.  ac-' 
cusation. 

3.  The  purport  of  the  apostle's  injunction  is  to  require  the  same  amourit 
of  evidence  against  an  elder  which  the  law  of  the  land  then  required  -in  all 
cases  of  criminal  accusation.  . 

4.  The  provisions  of  the  Canon  (third  of  1844)  seem  throughout  to  re- 
cognise the  common  law  as  that  which  applies  to  the  procedure,  evidence, 
&c.,  under  it.    That  the  principles  of  the  Canon  law  of  England  are  therein 
adopted  or  implied,  or  that  the  Church  designed  to  depart  from  the  rules  of 
the  common  law  relative  to  evidence,  is  not,  in  the  absence  of  any  positive 
legislation,  to  be  presumed.     One  absurdity -which  would  follow  from  the 
adoption  of  the  principle  in  question  %vould  be,  that  a  Bishop  might  be  con- 
victed in  the  civil  tribunals  of  a  crime,  the  penalty  of  which  is  imprison- 
ment or  death,  upon  testimony  which  would  not  warrant  an  ecclesiastical 
court  in  degrading  him. 

IV.  The   4th    argument  arises  out  of  the    testimony  -produced  on  the 
part  of  the '  Respondent  with   the  purpose  of  contradicting  the'  witnesses 
for  the   Presenters.     There  is  no  testimony  offered  to  -disprove  the  gen- 
eral  character  'of  the   witnesses  as    to    truth    or    veracity.       In    regard 
to  the  charges  in   articles   I.    and   II.,  there    is   no   evidence    before' the 
Court   except  that    for    the    Presentment.       In  reference  to -the  charges 
embraced    in  articles    V.    and    VI.,    there  is   presented    the  testimony  of 
the  Rev.  J.  Dowdney  to  contradict,  upon  some  points,  tfte  Misses' Rudde- 
row.     The  testimony  of  this  gentleman  is,  however,  by  no  means'  of  that 
clear  and  distinct  character  which  the  purpose  for'whiqh  it  is  adduced  must 
require.     His  recoj lection  is  conftjsed  upon  circumstances  occurring  within 
a  very  brief  period,  and  his  own  testimony  is  not  without  contradiction  from 


326 

himself,  and  another  witness  on  the  same  side.  It  is  not  therefore  evidence 
to  warrant  the  discrediting  of  the  testimony  of  the  Misses  Rudderow. 

In  reference  to  the  contradictions  attempted  of  the  evidence  given  by  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Beare,  were  the  facts  involved  material,  which  in  my  view  they 
are  not,  they  would  be  deprived  of  all  weight  by  the  admission  of  the  of- 
fences charged  by  the  Respondent,  not  more  than  ten  days  after  the  time  of 
their  occurrence,  testified  to  by  the  Rev.  Drs.  Milnor  and  Muhlenberg,  and 
Mr.  Beare.  I* am  forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  direct  testimony  offered 
for  the  Presentment  has  not  been  shaken  by  the  counter-evidence  on  th« 
part  of  the  Respondent.  "  T 

With  regard  to.  the  sentence  which  is  demanded  by  a  verdict  of  guilty — 
my  own  conviction  is  determined  by  the  considerations  following : 

l.'The  facts -proved  are  such  as  would  seriously  impair  the  reputation 
and  good  standing  of  any  person  claiming  a  respectable  character  and  posi- 
tion. 

2.  Th'ey  are  a  palpable  violation  of  the  solemn  consecration  vow  of  a 
Bishop. 

3.  They  were  committed  in  close  connection  with  the  exercise  of  the  sa- 
cred functions  of  the  Respondent's  office. 

4.  The  facts  proved  are  indicative  of  an  unholy  and  impure  state  of 
heart. 

5.  The  offences  charged  and  proved  are  a  violation,  of  the  sanctity  of  do- 
mestic life,  and  of  the  confidence  which  belongs  to  the  ministerial  character. 
The  effect  of  treating  them  as  light  and  venial  by  this  tribunal,  must  be 
seriously  to  prejudice  that  freedom,  cordiality,  and  confidence  of  intercourse 
between  ministers  and  the  members  of  their  flocks,  which  are  so  essential 
to  the  efficiency  of  the  work  intrusted  to  them. 

'  6.  It  seems  impossible  that  one  holding  the  high  station  6f  the  Respondent, 
after  having  been  proved  guilty  of  the  offences  charged  in  this  Presentment, 
can  afterwards  exercise  the  functions  thereof  to  the  edification  and  well-be- 
ing of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

7.  Our  sentence  in  this  matter,  is  to  lay  down,  upon  an  occasion  of  the 
most  solemn  character,  a  rule  of  morals  for  the  Church  of  Christ. 

8.  On  a  recent  painful  pccasion,  wherein  the  House  of  Bishops  received 
from  an  offending  brother,  an  acknowledgment  of  excessive  use  of  stimu- 
lating drinks,  and  a  request^  on  his  part,  for  the  exercise  of  discipline ; 
and  after  the  resignation  of  his  Episcopal  charge,  made  and  accepted,  the 
penalty  awarded  was,  unlimited  suspension.     Beyond  this,  there  is  but 
one  grade  of  penalty — and,  in  the  present  case,  I  am  forced  to  the  painful 
conclusion,  that  this  higher  measure  of  punishment  follows  inevitably  from 
the  verdict  rendered. 

A  weiglity  objection  also,  in  my  mind,  to  the  infliction  of  th*e  same  pen- 
alty of  suspension,  as  in  the  previous  case,  is  the  fact,  that  such  sentence 
will  not  dissolve  the  tie  between  the  Respondent  and  his  Diocese,  neither 
have  the  Court  any  power  to  do  this  in  connection  with  such  sentence. 

As  a  member  of  this  Court,  I  must,  under  a  solemn  sense  of  duty,  vote 
for  displacement. 

ALFRED  LEE, 
Bishop  of  Diocese  of  Delaware. 


327 
•»..*  «wif  >»  *?li>t  vloo  oi*»  !'   . 

'  OPINION  OF  THE  ASSISTANT  BISHOP  OF  VIRGINIA. 

THE  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  has  no  wish  (he  certainly  does  not 
deem  it  necessary)  to  explain  his  course  in  connection'  with  this  painful 
trial. 

He  regards  the  testimony  as  a 'full  justification  of  the  verdict  in  which, 
with  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  Court,  he  has  united,  and  is  satisfied  to  sub- 
mit it,  without  comment,  to  the  consideration  of  the  Churc"h.  With  regard 
to  the  punishment  appropriate  for  the  offences  which  h'ave'been  proved, 
conviction  in  such  case  is  itself,  in  his  view,  a  virtual  degradation. 

He  sees  not  how  any  one  found  guilty  of  such  offences  can  return  to  the 
duties  of  the  Episcopate  with  any  hope  of  regaining  confidence,  or  of  ad- 
vancing the  interests  of  pure  and  undefiled  religion ;  and  therefore  he  is 
of  opinion  that  the  proper  sentence  in  this  case  is  deposition.' 

J.  JOHNS, 

Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  Diocese  of  Virginia. 

January  3d,  1845. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  RHODE  ISLAND. 

IN  giving  my  verdict  in  this  trial  of  the  Respondent,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Ben- 
jamin Tredwell  Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Yprk,  I  could 
not  fail  to  pronounce  him  guihy  of  the  various  specifications  on  which  he 
•has  been  convicted  ;  because  otherwise  I  must  believe  that  many  witnesses 
of  unimpeached  character,  all  of  them  communicants  of  the  Church,  and 
some  of  them  ministers  of  good  standing  at  her  altars,  have,  without  any 
conceivable  motive,  wilfully  perjured  themselves.  . 

Of  the  righteousness  of  this  verdict — clearly  sustained  by  the  full  num- 
!ber  of  witnesses,  and  the  full  amount  of  testimony  ever  required  by.  any 
law,  whether  divine  or  human,  in  criminal  prosecutions — I  have  no  doubt. 
The  question  now  is,  not  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused,  but  as 
to.  the  sentence  which  should  be  pronounced  by  (his  Court.  That  sentence, 
whatever  it  may  be,  is  to  be  considered,  not  as  a  punishmeut  of  the  offender, 
but  simply  as  an  act  of  discipline,  designed  to  vindicate  the  laws  and  preserve 
the  purity  of  the  Church. 

As  to  the  Respondent,  it  is  the  design  of  this  act  of  discipline  to  lead  him 
to  repentance,  that  his  salvation  may  be  insured,  by  the  mercy  of  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

My  long  acquaintance  and  affectionate  intercourse  with  this  accused 
brother,  would  incline  me  to  the  most  lenient  and  merciful  sentence  by 
which  the  purity  and  welfare  of  the  Church  might  be  secured.  I  was 
.much  affected  by  the  address  of  the  Respondent,  in  palliation  and  excuse 
of  the  offences  of  which  he  has  been  convicted.  I  was  glad  to  find  that 
there  was  in  it  no  denial  of  any  of  the  acts  of  which  he  had  been  proved 
guilty  by  the  testimony.  Of  the  absence  of  adulterous  lust  and  impure  in- 
tentions, which  he  avows,  God  only  can  -judge.  It  is  not  our  prerogative  to 


judge  the  heart.     I  can  only  judge  of  the  acts  themselves,  as  proved  by 
the  testimony     • 

Those  acts  are,  in  my  judgment,,  immoral  in  their  very  nature — entirely 
•inconsistent  with  the  consecration  vows  of  a  Bishop,  arid  a  cause  of  scandal 
and  reproach  to  the.  Church  of  God.  I  arn  willing  to  give  full  credit  to 
the  professions  "of  the  Respopdent  as  to  his  present  freedom  from  the  like 
habits,  and  of  his  sincere  repentance  and  reformation  of  all  his  past  sins. 
Had  this  acknowledgment  and  declaration  of  the  Respondent  been  made 
before  the  Presentment,  or  even  when  he  was  called  upon  to  plead  to  it  at 
the  commencement  of  this  trial,  I  should  have  been  inclined  to  give  him  the 
solemn  admonition  of  this  Court,  accompanied  with  the  words  of  our  Sa- 
viour to  a  pardoned  penitent — "  Go,  and  sin  no  more."  But  the  Respond- 
ent, .by  his  own  proceedings  in  the  case,  has  precluded  the  possibility  of 
exercising  this  degree  of  clemency '  without  bringing  dishonor  upon  the 
Court,  disgrace  upon  the  Church,  which  her  Bishops  represent,  and  exposing 
its  discipline  to  contempt.  He  has  pleaded  not  guilty  to  the  charges  and 
specifications  in  the  Presentment,  and  compelled  us  to  go  through  a  very 
tedious  and  impartial  investigation- of -the  facts.  As  the  result  of  that  in- 
vestigation, he  has  been  found  guilty  by  the  Court.  Now  that  the  verdict 
has  been  rendered,  it  is  too  late  to  plead  a  professed  repentance  and  reforma- 
tion as  a  palliation  of  excuse  of  the  acts  proved. '  If  it  were  not  for  the 
perplexing 'and  interminable  evils  which  might  be  expected  to  result  from 
.  leaving  the  Diocese  of  New  York  in  connection  with  a  Bfshop  suspended 
from  the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  functions,  I  might  perhaps  vote  for  his 
suspension  ;•  but  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  I  believe  it  to  be  re- 
quired by  the  purity  .of  the  Church,  and  true  mercy  to  the  Respondent,  that 
he  be  deposed*. 

J.  P.  K.  HENSHAW, 

Bishop  of  Rhode  Island,  and  Provisional  Bishop  of  Maine.. 
•    St.  John's  Church,  New  York,  Jan.  3d,  1845. 


•       OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  ARKANSAS. 

IN  consequence  of  the  solemn  affirmation  of  the  Respondent  of  his  inno- 
cence of  all  evil  and  impure  intentions  in  the  acts  of  which  he  has  been 
proved  and  pronounced  guilty,  and  of  his  solemn  declaration  before  Al- 
mighty God  and  .in  presence  of  this  Court,  that  he  is  now,  and  has 
been  for  several  years  past  living,  in  a  state  of  penitence  for  all  his  sins. 
\vhich-affirmation  and  declaration  he  has  urged  in  palliation  of  his  offences  ; 
and  considering  .that  .none  of  the  acts  of  which  he  has  been  proved  guilty 
•was  committed  within  the  period  of  more  than  two  years  last  past,  I  am 
brought  to  the  conclusion  -that  it  would  be  the  severity  of  justice  and  of  the 
discipline  of  the  Church,  to  inflict  the  highest  censure  authorized  by  the 
Canon  under  which  this  trial  has  been  conducted.  But  as  the  offences  proved 
are  of  such  a  nature  as  necessarily  to  bring  great  scandal  upon  the  Church,, 
and  consequently  to  call  for  the  decided  action  of  this  Court,  my  opinion 
is,  that. the  sentence  passed  upon  the  Respondent  should  be  suspension. 

GEO.  W.  FREEMAN, 
Missionary  Bishop  of  Arkansas. 


',:    fit    k- '  •  •         •  •'  •  • 

AFTER  the  delivery  of  opinions,  the  Court  proceeded  to  scrutiny.* 

On  the  first  scrutiny  it  appeared  that  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Vermont, 
Ohio,  Louisiana;  and  Delaware;  the '  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia-;  and 
tfee  Bishops  of  Massachusetts  and  Rhode 'Island,  voted  for  deposition,  — 

The  Bishops  of  Connecticut,  Kentucky,  and  the  South  Western  Mission- 
ary Diocese,  voted  for  suspension, — 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New-  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland,  for 
admonition. 

•  On  the  second  scrutiny,  it  appeared  that  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Vermont. 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Louisiana;  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  ;  and  the 
Bishop  of  Rhode  Island,  voted  for  deposition, — 

The  Bishops  of  Connecticut,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  Delaware,.  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  voted  for  suspen- 
sion.—  .  ' 

The  Bishops  of  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  the  North  Western  Mis- 
sionary Diocese,  and  .Western  New  York,  for  admonition.  . 

On  the  third  scrutiny,  it  appeared  that  the  Bishops  of  Illinois,  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  Louisiana,  and  Delaware  ;'  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  and  the  Bishop  of  Massachusetts,  voted  for  deposition, — 

And  the  Bishops  of  Connecticut,  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  .the  North 
Western  Missionary  Diocese,  Western  New  York,  South  Carolina,  Mary- 
land, Rhode  Island,  and 'the  South  Western  Missionary  Diocese,  voted  for 
suspension, — 

Whereupon  it  appearing  that  a  majority  of  the  Court  concurred  in  the 
sentence  of  suspension, — 

The  President  pronounced  suspension  to  be  the  sentence  of  the  Court. 

A  form  of  declaration  of  suspension  having  been  drawn  up  was  adopted 
by  the  Court,  as  follows,  viz  : 

THE  Court  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  convened  un- 
der the  authority  of  Canon  III.  of  1844,  of  the  General  Convention  pf  said 
Church,  for  the  trial  of  the  Presentment  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Tredwell 
Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  William 
Meade,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Virginia;  the  Rt.  Rev.  James  tiervey 
Otey,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Tennessee ;  and  the  Rt.  Rev.  Stephen  El- 
liott, jun.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Georgia,  upon  certain  charges  and  spe- 
cifications in  said  Presentment  set  forth  ;  having  fully  heard  the  allegations 
and  testimony  of  the  parties,  and  deliberately  considered  the  same,  and  a 
majority  of  the  said  Court  having  declared  that  in  their  opinion  the  accused 
is  guilty  of  certain  of  the  charges  and  specifications  contained  in  the  Pre- 
sentment,— which  declaration  of  a  majority  of  the-Court  has  been  reduced 
to  writing,  and  signed  by  .those  who  assented  thereto,  and  has.  been  pro- 
nounced in  the  presence  of  the  parties  ;  and  the  Court  having  proceeded, 

*  Several  members  of  the  Court  having  requested' to  have  their-  actual  votes  on  ^he 
sentence  recorded,  it  was  thought  best  to  publish  the  whole,  as  appears  on  pages 
33Si,  333. 


after  hearing  the  accused,  to  pass  sentence  upon  the  accused,  in  conformity 
with  the  provisions  of  the  said  Canon,  and  having  determined  that  the 
penalty  to  be  affixed  and  pronounced  in  said  case  shall  be  that  of  suspen- 
sion — 

It  is  hereby  ordered  and  declared,  that  the  sentence  of  this  Court  upon 
the  Respondent  is  suspension  from  the  office  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church  of 
God,  and  from  all  the  functions  of  the  sacred  ministry,  —  and  this  Court  do 
hereby  solemnly  pronounce  and  declare  that  the  Right  Rev.  Benjamin 
Tredwell  Onderdonk  is  suspended  from  all  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  and 
ministerial  functions  —  and  do  order  that  the  notice  of  this  sentence  required 
by  said  Canon  be  communicated  by  the  Presiding  Bishop,  under  his  hand 
and  seal,  to  the  Ecclesiastical  authority  of  every  Diocese  of  this  Church. 

PHILANDER  CHASE, 
Senior  Bishop,  and  President  of  the  Court  of  Bishops. 

r    •      -,         Given  under  my  hand  and  seal,  this  third  day  of  January, 
lL'J     A.  D.  1845,  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

<•&  KJ."iA  'if'.-':  ^*"»V*°lr   *T 

It  was  ordered  by  the  Court,  that  the  Presiding  Bishop,  the  Rt.  Rev.  the 

Bishop  of  Virginia,  and  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Secretary,  with  the  assistance  of 
the  Rev.  the  Assistant  Secretary,  take  order  for  the  publication  of  the  Rec- 
ords of  this  Court;  the  testimony  taken,  the  arguments  of  Counsel,  and  the 
opinions  of  the  Court,  and  for  securing  a-  Copyright  of  the  same. 

The  Record  of  the  Court  was  then  read  over  by  the  Clerk,  and  approved. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  sine  die. 

Attest, 
W.  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  Clerk. 


uwsnf* 


:fei  •* 


' 


332 


THE  BISHOP  or  ILLINOIS. 
THE  BISHOP  OF  CONNECTICUT 


THE  'BisHOP  or  VERMONT. 


THE  BISHOP  or  KENTUCKY. 


VOTES    OF    THE    COURT 

First  Scrutiny. 
Bishop  of  Illinois :  Deposition. 

Bp.  of  Copnectic.ut ; 

Let  the  Respondent  be  Suspended. 

I  have  declared  by  my  vote  that  1  consider 
the  Rt.  Rev.  B.T.  Oriderdonk,  Bishop  of  New 
York,  not  guilty  of  the  charges  alleged  in  the 
Presentment ;  but  as  I  am  called  upen  by  the 
.  Canon  for  my  sentence,  I  hereby  pronounce 
that  he  receive  as  slight  an  admonition  as  th« 
Canon  will  admit. 

L.  Silliman  Ives, 
Bp.  of  No.  Ca. 

Deposition,    • 

John  H.  Hopkins, 
Bishop  of  Vermont. 

.1  him  be  suspended.         • 

B  B.  Smith,  Bp.  of  the 
P.  E.  Ch.  in  the  Dio.  of  Ky. 


THE  BISHOP  or  OHIO.  .      ,  .'  .{ 
THE  BISHOP  or  NEW  JERSEY. 


THE  BISHOP  or  THE  NORTH  WESTERN  MIS- 
SION ART  DJOCESE.  . 


THE  BISHOP  or  LOUISIANA.     . 

THE  BISHOP  or  WESTERN  NEW  Yosi. 

THE  BISHOP  or  SOUTH  CAROLINA.     . 

THE  BISHOP -or  MARYLAND.     .       '     ..".; 


Bishop  of  Ohio : 

Deposition. 

I  have  declared  the  Respondent  not  gwifty, 
•and  so  believe  him  ;  but  as  a  majority  of  the 
Court  have  decided  otherwise,  and  sentence 
must  be  passed,  mine  is : 
Let  him  receive  the  lightest  admonition  coo- 
templated  by  the  Canon. 

G.  W.  Doane,  Bishop  of  'New  Jersey. 


Admonition. 


Jackson  Kern  pec- 
3  Jan.  1*15 


The  Bp.  of  Louisiana  votes  for 
Deposition. 


Admonition. 


W.  H.  De  Lancey. 


Inasmuch  as  the  Canon  seems  to  make  it 
necessary  that  some  penalty  should  be  award- 
ed,  the  Bp.  of  South  Carolina  is  in  favor  of 
Admonition. 

My  sentence  is  for  the  lightest  degree  of 
Admonition.  .' 

"William  Rollinson  Whittingham, 
Bishop  of  Maryland. 


THE  BISHOP  or  DELAWARE.    . 

THE  ASSISTANT  Bftaor  or  VIRGINIA.  . 
THE  BISHOP  or- MASSACHUSETTS. 
THE  BISHOP  or  RHODE  ISLAND. 


.-        Deposition. 

,.         For  Deposition. 
Deposition. 
Let  him  be  deposed. 


.     Alfred  Lee. 

J.  Johna, 

M.  Eastbura. 

J.  P.  K.  Henshaw. 


THE  BISHOP  or  THE  SOUTH  WESTERN  Mis-         Let  him.be  suspended. 

SIOMART  DIOCESE.  v  ;  .  Geb.  W.  Freeman, 

Miss'v  Bi>.  of  Arkansas- 


333 

UPON   THfE    SENTENCE. 

Second  Scrutiny. 


Deposition. 

Bp.  of  Connecticut : 

Admonition. 


Bp.  of  Illinois. 
Suspension. 

L,  Silliman  Ives, 
Bp.  of  No.  Ca. 


Third  Scrutiny. 


Bp.  of  Illinois :  Deposition. 
Bp.  of  Connecticut : 


icnsion. 


Suspension,  to  ward  off  Deposition. 

L.  Silliman  Ives, 
.   Bp.of  No.  Ca. 


Depoeitio*. 

John  H.  Hopkins, 
Bishop  of  Vermont. 

Under  the  conviction  that  the  effect  of  con- 
viction must  be  forever  to  destroy  the  useful- 
ness of  the  Respondent,  I  accede  to  the  vote; 
«f  those  who  are  in  favor  of  Deposition. 
B.  B.  Smith,  Bp.  of  the  P.  E.  Ch. 

in  the  Dio.  of  Ky.  . 


Bp.  of  Ofaio: 


Admonitioa. 


Deposition. 


G.  W.  Doane. 


Deposition. 

John  H.  Hopkins, 
Bishop  of  Vermont. 

Deposition. 

B.  B.  Smith,  Bp.  of  the  P.  E\  Ch. 
in  the  Dio.  of  Ky 


Bp.  of  Ohio: 


Deposition. 


There  being  twice  a  failure  to  unite  in  any 
sentence,  I  accede  to  Suspension. 

G.  W.  Doan*. 


Admonition. 


Jackson  Kemper. 


Bp.  of  Louisiana  •. 

Deposition. 


Slight  admonition. 


W.  H.  De  Lancey. 


I  accede  to  Suspension. 

Bp.  of  the  Diocese  of 
South  Carolina. 


Kemper  -. 

Suspension. 

Bp.  Louisiana: 


Deposition. 


Suspension. 


W.  H.  De  Laacey. 

3d  vote : 
I  accede  to  Suspension. 

••  Bp.  So.  Carolina. 


My  seritence  is  for  admonition,  but  perceiv, 
)!£  that  there  is  no  hope  of  securing  a  ma-' 
jority  of  votes  for  that,  I  accede  to  the  sen- 
fence  o(  Htupention.  . 

William  llollinson  Whittingham, 

Bp.  of  Maryland.    . 


My  sentence  is  for  admonition,  but  in  the 
conviction  that  a  majority  will  not  be  given 
fyc  that  sentence, 

I  accede  to  the  sentence  of  Suspension. 
William  Rollinson  Whittingham, 
Bp.  of  Maryland. 


2d  Voting  : 

14 

Deposition.  • 

Suspension- 
Alfred  Lee. 

Alfred  Lee. 

For  Deposition. 

J.  Johns. 

For  Deposition. 

J.  Johns. 

Suspension. 
M. 

Eastbum.  . 

Deposition. 

Manton  Eastbarn, 

Deposition. 

J.    IT.  BL. 

Henshaw. 

Suspension. 

J.  P.  K.  Henshaw. 

Let  him  be  suspended. 
Geo.  W. 

Freeman. 

Suspension. 

G.  W.  F. 

.4fc3*fc.»<rtt  :•!  >?   .-.' 
.»«**«» ,.     . 


' 

• 


' 
!•••  ^  , 


^^^  t<«H.»W*kl   .'itl. 

•**  .      .  :         i  '••• 

'  I.ir.W" 


1 


EPISCOPAL    BOOK    ESTABLISHMENT. 


CATALOGUE 


EPISCOPAL   WORKS, 


INCLUDING    THE 


WBITINGS  OF 

Jl'Kempis's  Imitation. 
Jlntkon's  Catechisms. 
Beacens  Help  to  Cate- 
chising. 

Book  of  Com.  Prayer. 
Bradley's  Sermons. 
Burnct's  Reformation. 

"     XXXIXJrtides. 
Churton's  E.E.  Church 
Christmas  Bells. 
Evans's      Rectory      of 

Valehcad. 
Fdber  on  Election 
Gresley  on  Preaching. 

"     Eng.  Churchman. 
Hare's  Sermons. 
Hooker's  Works. 
Kip's  Double  Witness. 
Lyra  Jlpostolica. 
Magce  on  Monf-ment. 
Manning  on  Unity. 


ANCIENT  AND  MODERN  AUTHORS. 


Maurice    on   Kingdom 
of  Christ. 

Newman's  Sermons. 

Ogilby  on  Lay  Baptism. 

Pa  tret's    Tales    of    the 
Village. 

Pearson  on  the  Creed. 

Palmer  on  the  Church. 

Sherlock's       Practical 
Christian. 

Spinckes's    Manual  of 
Devotion. 

Spencer's  flermons. 

Button's  Learn  to  Live. 
"  "  Die. 

"•        on  Sacrament. 

Swart' s  Letters  to  God- 
child. 

Taylor's  Golden  Grove. 
14      on  Episcopacy. 

Wilson's  SacraPrivata. 

Wilberforce's      Eucha- 
ristica. 


PUBLISHED  BY 


D.   A  P  P  L  E  T  O  N    &    CO., 

200  BROADWAY,  NEW- YORK. 

MDCCCXLIV.  , 
ALSO    FOR    SALE    BY    THE    FOLLOWING    EPISCOPAL    BOOKSELLERS. 

Baltimore,  I>.  Bmnnef,  N.  Hickman,  C.  Colbtim. — Charleston,  A.  E.  Miller.— Savannah,  W 
Thome  Williams. — Now  Orleans,  J.  B.  Steolo. — Boston,  J.  B.  Dow  ;  Clms.  Stimpton.— 
Hartford,  Henry  S.  Parsons. — New  Haven,  3.  Babcock  ;  Croswell  &  Jewett  — Provi- 
dence, Sam.  C.  BIodi»et. — Noi  folk,  R.  C.  Barclay. — Richmond,  Dunker  &  Morrii  j 
Joseph  Gill.— Utica,  J.  Tiffany.— ButTalo,  \V.  B.  &  C.  E.  Peck.— Albany,  E. 
H.  Pease.— Ualc'gh,  Tuiner  &  Hughes. — Columbus,  Ohio.  Whiting  & 
Huntin^ton  ;  Derby  &  Allen. — Alexandria,   D.    C.,    Bell  &   En- 
tvrisle. — Troy,  Yoiins-  &   Hurt;    Steclrnan   &   Ketlfield. — Att- 
burii.  J  C.  Derby  &.  Co. — Lexington,  Ky.,  A.T.  Skillman 
i  Son. — Cineinnati,-Geo.  Cox  —  Rocheiter,  G.  W 
Fiohcr  <fe  Co. 


Valuable  Episcopal    \Vorkt  Published  by  D.  Ajtjtlcton   Sf  Co. 
COMPLETE  WORKS  OF  MR.  RICHARD  HOOKER; 

WITH    AN    ACCOUNT    OF    HIS    LIFE    AND    DEAXH. 
BY  ISAAC  WALTON. 

AKBAHGBP    BT    THE     RET.    JOH»IBBLX,    •     A. 

fn  too  elegant  octave  volumes. — Price  $4  00. 
CONTEXTS. 

The  Editor's  Preface  comprises  a  general  survey  of  the.  former  edition  of  Hooker** 
Works,  with  Histoiical  Illustration*  of  the  period.  After  which,  follows  the  Life  o> 
Hooker,  by  I«aac  Walton,  Those  articles  occupy  nearly  two  firths  of  the  first  volume  of 
the  English  edition.  His  chief  work  succeeds,  on  the  "  .Laps  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity  " 

It  commences  with  a  lengthened  Preface  designed  as  an  Address  "  to  them  who  seek  th* 
Reformation  of  the  Laws  and  Orders  Ecclesiastical  of  the  Church  of  England." 

The  discussion  is  divided  into  eight  books,  which  include  an  investigation  of  the  topic* 
thus  stated. 

1.  Laws  and  their  several  kinds  in  gener  i). 

2.  The   use  of  the  divine  I  iw  contained  in  Scripture ;  whether  that  be  the  only  law 
Which  ought  to  serve  for  our  direction. in  al.  things  without  exception;  or  whether  Scripture 
w  the  only  rule  of  all  things,  which,  in  this  file,  may  be  done  by  men. 

3.  Laws  concerning  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  'whether  the  form  thereof  be  in  Scripture   «•  • 
sot  down   that  no  addition  or  change  is  lawful:  or  whether,  in  Scripture,  there  must  be  • 
of  necessity  contained  a  form  of  church  polity,  the  laws  wheieof  may  in  no  wise  be  altered 

•  .    4.  General  exceptions  taken  against  the  hw.s  of  our  polity,  as  being  popish,  and  banished 
out  of  certain  refoimed  churches  ;  or  the  assertion,  that  our  form  of  church  polity  is  cor 
•  rupted  with  popish  orders,  rites,  and  ceremonies,  h.inished  out  of  certain  reformed  churches, 
whose  example  therein  we  ou»ht  to  have  followed.  . 

5.  The  fifth  book  occupies  two-fifths  of  the  whole  work,  subdivided  into  eighty-one 
chapters,  including  all  the  principal  topics  which,  in.  the  sixteenth  cectary.  weie  the  §uo- 
jects  of  polemical  disputation  tx.-r.veen  the,  members  of  the  Established  Church  of  England 
and  the  Puritans.     The  character   and   extent  of  the   research   can   accurately  be  under- 
stood ftorb  this  general  delineation.     Our  laws   that  concern   the  puMic  religious   dutie* 
of  the  church,  and  the  manner  of  bestowing  that  Older,  which  entihleth  men.  in  sundry 
degrees  and  callings,  to  execute  the  same,}  or  the  assert  ion  that  touching  the  several  du- 
ties of  the  Christian  religion,  there  is  amon|  us  much  superstition  retained  in  them  ;  »t4 
concerning  persons  who,  for  performance  of  those  dutie-,  aie  endued  with  the  power  tA 
ecclesiastical  order,  and  laws  and  proceedings  according  thereunto,  are  many  ways   herei* 
also  corrupt. 

6.  The   Power  of  Jurisdiction,  whicli  the  Reformed  platform  claimeth  unto  lay-elders, 
with  others ;  or  the  assertion,  that  opr  laws  are  corrupt  and  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  Goti.  • 
in   matters   belonging   to  the   power  of  eccfesiasticd.  jurisdiction,  in   that   we   have    DO; 
throughout  all  churches,  certain  lay-eUers  tetaMished   or  the  exercise  of  that  power. 

7  "The  Power  of  Juiisdiction,  and  the  honour  which  is  annexed  thereunto  in  Bishops,  01 
the  assertion,  that 'there  ought  not  to  be  in  the  CUurcb,  Bisiiops  endued  with  such  aotkoritr 
and  honour  a*  ours  are.  • 

8.  The  power  of  ecclesiastical  dominion  or  supreme  a-ithoiity.  which  with  us,  the  high 
sst  governor  or  prince  hath,  as  will  in  regard  of  domestical  jurisdiction,  m  of  thrt  other  fo 
reignly  claimed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  or  the  assertion,  that  to  no  civil  p-inc-e  or  goverrioi 
there  may  be  given  such  power  of  ecclesiastical  dominion,  as  by  the  laws  of"  too  land  bc- 
lonscth  tinto  the  supreme  regent  thereof. 

•After  those  e'ight'Books  of  "  Tbe  Laws  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity,"  follow  two  S*rmon». 
The  certainty  and  perpetuity  of  Faith  iruthe  elect ;  especially  of  the  Prophet  Habakkuk'i 
ith  ;"  aot!  "  justification.  Works,  and  bow  the  foundation  of  faith  is  overthrown.'1 

Next  are  introduced — "  A  supplication  made  to  the  Council  by  Master  Walter  Tr.v 
t«r»," — and  '  Mi.  Hooker's  answer  to  the  supplication  that  Mr.  Travers  made  to  the  council.' 

Then  follow  two  sermons — "  On  the  nature  of  pride,"— and  a  "  Keruedy  against  sorrow 
and  fear." 

Two  Sermons  on  pait  of  the  epistle  of  the  Apostle  Jude,  are  next  inserted — with  a  prefa- 
•ry  dedication,  by  Henry. Jacksos. 

The  last  article  in  the  works  of  Mr.  Hopker  is,  a  Sermon  on  Prayer. 

To  render  the  worK  more  valuable  and  adapted  for  reference  and  utility  to  the  Student,  » 
very  copious  Topic. il  Index  is  added. 

The  Englsh  edition  in  three  volumes  sells  £t  (10  00,  The  American  U  an  exact  repnal, 
at  lea*  than  half  the  price. 

fV»m  Lentmdej'  British  'Librarian  and  6ook- Cotte ctor'j  Ouidt. 
"  Keble's  preface,  like  Walton's  life,  should  precede  every  ?u'iser)uent  edition. 
'•  Hooker  n  univcn-illy  distinguished  lor   long   drawn   melody  and  mellifluence  of  ka 
jooge,  and  his  works  m j»i  find  a  place  iu  every  well  chosen   clerical   li'jxarr." 


'faith 


Valuable  Episcopal   Works  Published  by  D.  Appleton  tip  Co. 

BURNET'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

The  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  GILBERT 
BURNET,  D.  D.,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Salisbury — with  the  Collection  of 
Records  and  a  copious  Index,  revised  and  corrected,  with  additional 
Notes  and  a  Preface,  by  the  Rev.  E.  Nares,  D.  D.,  late  Professor  of 
Modern  History  in  the  University  of  Oxford.'  Illustrated  with  a  Front- 
ispiece and  twenty-three  engraved  Portraits,  forming  four  elegant  8vo 
vols,  $8  00. 

V  cheap  Edition  is  printed,  containing  the  History  in  three  vols.  with- 
out the  Records — which  form  the  fourth  volume  of  the  above. — Price, 
in  boards,  $2  50. 

To  the  student  either  of  civil  or  religious  history  no  epoch  can  be  of  more  importance 
Alii  ths>.t  of  the  Reformation  in  England.  It  signalized  the  overthrow,  in  one  of  its  strong- 
»t  hol.'s,  of  the  Roman  power,  and  gave  an  impulse  to  the  human  mind,  the  full  results  of 
which  are  *ven  now  but  partly  realized.  Almost  all  freedom  of  inquiry. — all  toleration  in 
matters  of  -eligion,  had  its  bitth-hour  then  ;  and  without  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  all  it? 
principal  etepts,  but  little  progiess  can  be  made  in  understanding  the  nature  and  ultimate 
tendencies  of  iSe  revolution  then  effected. 

The  History.of  Bishop  BURNET  is  one  of  the  most  celebrated  and  by  far.  the  most  fre- 
quently quoted  <J1  my  that  has  been  written  of  this  gieat  event.  Upon  the  original  publi- 
cation of  the  first  •olume,  it  was  received  in  Great  Britain  with  the  loudest  and  most  extra- 
vagant encomiums  The  author  received  the  thanks  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  and  wa» 
requested  by  them  to  continue  the  woik  In  continuing  it  he  had  the  assistance  of  the  most 
learned  and  eminent  divines  of  his  time  ;  and  he  confesses  his  indebtedness  for  important  aid 
to  LLOY.D,  TIILOTSON,  and  STILI.INCFLEET,  three  of  the  greatest  of  England's  Bishops. 
;<  I  know,"  says  he,  in  his  Preface  to  the  second  volume,  ''  that  nothing  can  more  effectually 
recommend  this  worK,  than  to  say  that  it  passed  with  their  hearty  approbation,  after  they  had 
examined  it  with  that  care  which  their  great  zeal  for  the  cause  concerned  in  it,  and  their 
•  goodness  to  the  author  and  freedom  with  him,  obliged  them  to  use." 

The  present  «d  tion  of  this  great  work  has  been  edited  with  laborious  care  by  Dr.  Naro*, 
who  professes  to  have  corrected  important  erroia  into  which  the  .author  fell,  and  to  have 
made  such  improvements  in  the  order  of  the  work  us  will  render  it  far  more  useful. to  tht 
reader  or  historical  student.  Preliminary  explanations,  full  and  sufficient  to  the  clear  under- 
standing of  the  author,  are  given,  and  marginal  references  are  made  throughout  the  hook,  w» 
as  greatly  to  facilitate  and  render  accurate  its  consultation.  The  v  hole  is  published  in  four 
large  octavo  volumes  of  six  hundred  pages  in  each— printed  upon  heavy  paper  in  Idrge  and 
clear  type.  It  contains  portraits'  of  twenty-four  of  the  most  celebrated  characters  of  the 
Reformation,  and  is  issued  in  a  very  neat  style.  It  will  of  course  find  a  place  in  every  the- 
ajogtan^s  libiary — and  will,  by  no  means,  we  trust,  be  confined  to  that  comparatively  limited 
sphere.— JV.  Y.  TVifritn*. 

BURNET  ON  THE  XXXIX.  ARTICLES. 

An  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England. 
By  (iii-BERT  BUKNET,  D  D.,  late  Bishop  of  Salisbury.  With  an  Ap- 
pendix, containing  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV., 
&c.  Revised  and  corrected,  with  copious  Notes  and  additional  Refer- 
ences, by  the  Rev.  James  R.  Page,  A.  M  ,  of  Queen's  College,  Cam- 
bridge. In  one  handsome  8vo.  volume.  ^200. 

"  No  Churchman,  no  Theologian,  can  stand  in  need  of  information  as  to  the  character  or 
raluei  of  Binhop  Burnet's  Exposition,  which  long  since  took  its  fitting  place  as  one  of  thi» 
acknowledged  and  admired  standards  of  the  Church.  It  is  only  needful  that  we  speak  of 
(tie  labours  of  the  editor  of  the  present  edition,  and  these  appear  to  blend  a  fitting  modesty 
with  eminent  industry  and  judgment.  Thus,  while  Mr.  Page  has  carefully  verified,  arid  in 
'manv  instances  corrected  and  enlarged  the  leferences  to  the  Fathers.  Councils',  and  other  au- 
thorities' and  gr«atly  multiplied  the  Scripture  citations— for  the  Biibop  leemi  in  many 
rises  to  have  f»»fotten  that  his  readers  would  not  all  be  as  familiar  with  the  Sacted  Text  as 
JAmscIf,  and  might  not  a»  readily  find  a  passage  even  when  they  knew  it  exutrd  he  (Mr 
P.)  has  scrupulously  left  the  text  untouched,  and  added  whatever  illustrative  mutter  he  has 
bcon  able  to  gather  "in  the  form  of  Notes  and  an  Appendix.  The  document!  collected  in  tka 
latter  are  of  great  and  abiding  value." 

3 


Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Appleton  &?  Co 

PAROCHIAL    SERMONS. 

BY  JOHN  HENRY  NEWMAN.  B.  D. 

Fellow  of  Oriel  College  and  Vicar  of  St.  Mary  the  Virgin's,  Oxford.  The 
6  vols.  London  edition,  complete  in  two  elegant  8vo.  vols.  of  upward* 
of  600  pages  each.  $5  00. 


r;  Newman's  Sermons  have  probably  attained  a  higher  character  ttian  any  otheti 
ercr  published  in  tlits  country.  The  following  are  a  few  of  tlie  recommcridatory  notices  of 
the  press,  received  by  the  publishers:  — 

"  It  would  be  rather  late  now  to  praise  sermons  whose  reputation  is  so  well  established  as 
those  of  Mr.  Newman;  and  it  would  be  unpardonable  vanity  to  suppose  that  any  thine  we 
might  any  could  add  to  the  very  high  commendations'  they  have  received  from  some  ot  our 
Right  Reverend  Fathers  in  God.  v\  e  quoted  List  week  the  strong  language  of  the  Itishbp  of 
Maryland:  the  Bisrrop  of  New'  York  says,  '•  foi  simplicity  nnd  godly  sincerity,  fur  humble 
and  child-1  ke  reliance  on  the  word  of  God.  anil  for  close,  pointed,  and  uncompromi*  ig  pre- 
sentation of  the  tiulhs  and  duties  of  the  gospel,  I  know  not  their  superiors."  7"  j  Bishop 
of  New  Jersey  thus  speaks  of  them,  in  a  letter  to  the  publisheis  :  "  I  have  looke  and  longed 
for  an  edition  of  these  sermons,  as  your  noblest  contributions  to  the  sacrerl  literature  of  the 
times.  Mr.  Newman's  Sermons  are  of  an  order  by  themselves.  Then*  is  a  naturalness,  a 
pressure  towards  the  point  proposed,  an  ever  salient  fieshness  ahou'  them,  which  will  at 
tract  a  cl.us  of  readers  10  whom  sermons  are  not  oiil-nnrily  attractive:"  —  and  the  Bishop  of 
North  Carolina  writes,  '•!  do  not  hesitate  to  siy,  —  after  a  constant  u*-j  of  them  in  my  closet, 
and  an  observation  of  their  effect  upon  some  of  my  friends,  for  the  list  six  years,  —  that  they 
are  among  the  very  best  practical  sermons  i'i  the  English  language  ;  that  while  they  aie  free 
from  those  extravagances  of  opinion  usually  ascribed  to  the  author  of  the  93  h  Tract,  they 
assert  in  the  strongest  manner  the  true  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  in  England,  and  enforce 
with  peculiar  solemnity  and  effect  that  holiness  of  life,  with  the  moans  thereto,  so  charac- 
teristic of  the  Fathers  of  that  trying  age." 

The  sermons  are  155  in  number,  being  an  exact  reprint  of  the  London  edition  in  six 
volumes.  —  Banner  of  the  Cross. 

"  Of  Mr.  Newman's  Sermons  it  may  bo  safely  said,  that  they  are  adapted  to  the  besetting 
sins  of  the  age  ;  that  the  author  traces  them  with  a  masterly  hand  to  the  most  secret  springs 
of  intellectual  pride  ;  and  that  he  explains  and  enforces  the  great  principles  and  dut  es  of 
Evangelical  holiness,  w:th  a  grace  and  s;mplicity  of  style,  and  unction  of  manner,  which  are 
seldom  surpassed.  We  therefoie  heartily  commend  h-s  Sermons  to  our  readers,  and  earn- 
estly hope  they  may  find  their  way  into  every  family."  —  Tlie  Churchman. 

"  As  a  compendium  of  Christian  duty,  these  Sermons  will  be  read  by  people  of  all  denomi- 
nations. As  models  of  style,  they  will  be  valued  by  wtiters  in  every  department  of  iitera 
lure."—  United  States  Gazette. 

"These  Sermons  must  eventually  be  received.  and  quoted  as  among  the  Standard  Theo- 
logical  Writings  of  this  century,  and  that,  too,  within  the  time  of  this  generation."  —  Phil, 
Sat.  Post. 

"  They  hear  the  marks  of  an  original  and  highly  catholic  mind,  and  many  of  them  breathe 
t  deep  devotional  spirit.—  Albany  Argus. 

SERMONS 

BEARING   ON    SUBJECTS   OF   THE  DAY.      . 
BY  JOHN  HENRY  NEWMAN,  B.  D. 

One  elegant  volume,  I  2  mo.      Price   $1    25. 

This  volume  contains  twenty-  xix  Sermons,  which  aie  thus  entitled  :—  Work  of  the  Chris- 
tian. —  Saimliness  not  forfeited  by  the  Penitent.—  Our  Lord's  last  Supper  and  his  first.  — 
Dangers  to  the  Penitent.  —  The  Three  Offices  of  Christ.  —  Faith  and  Experience.—  Faith  and 
the  World.—  The  Church  and  the  World.—  Indulgence  in  religious  privileges.-  -Connexion 
between  personal  and  public  improvement.  —  Christian  Nobleness.—  Joshua  a  type  of  Christ 
and  his  followers.  —  Elisha  a  type  of  Christ  and  his  followers.  —  The  Christian  Church  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  Jewish.—  The  Principle  of  continuity  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
Churches.  —  The  Christian  Church  an  imperial  power.  —  Sanctity  the  token  of  the  Christian 
•rapire.—  Condition  of  the  Members  of  the  Christian  Empire.—  The  Apostolical  Christian  — 
Wisdom  and  Innocence.  —  Invisible  presence  of  Christ.—  Outward  and  inward  Notes  ol  the 
Church.—  Grounds  for  "tedlastness  in  our  religious  piof'.'asion.  --Elijah  tl-e  prophet  of  the 
latter  day*.—  Feasting  in  captivity.—  The  parting  of  friends. 


Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Appleton  tip  Co. 
SERMONS 

PREACHED    AT    CLAPHAM    AND    G-LASBURY. 

BY  THE  REV.  CHARLES  BRADLEY,  A.  M. 
Two  volumes  of  English  edition  in  one.     Price  $1  25. 

"he  Sermons  of  this  Divine   are  much  admired  for  their  plain,  yet  chnste  and  elegu 
;  they  will  he  found  admirahly  adapted  for  f-imi  ly  rending  and  preaching,  where  no  pasp 
-ted.     Recommeridutidns  might  be  given,   if  space  would  admit,  fiom  several   ofe 
.,j3  and  Clergy — also  from  Ministers  of  various  denominations. 
The  following  are  a  few  of  the  English  critical  opinions  of  their  merit  :— 
"  Bradley's  Discourses  are  judicious  and  practical,  scriptural  and  devout."-  Lmendetti 
British  Librarian. 

"Very  ab'e  and  judicious." — Rev.  E.  Bickersteth. 


'•  Bradley's  style  is  sententious  pithy,  and  colloquial.  He  is  simple  without  being  qaalnt  j 
and  he  almost  holds  conversation  with  his  hearers,  without  descending  from  the  dignity  of 
the  sacred  chair." — Eclectic  Review 

"We  earnestly  desire  that  every  pulpit  in  the  kingdom  may  ever  be  the  vehicle  ofdi»* 
courses  as  judicious  and  practical,  as  scriptutal  and  devout  as  these." — Christian  Observer, 


HARE'S   PAROCHIAL    SERMONS. 

Sermons  to  a  Country  Congregation.  By  Augustus  William  Hare,  A.  M., 
late  Fellow  of  New  College,  and  Rector  of  Alton  Barnes.  One  vol- 
ume, royal  8vo.  $2  25. 

"  Any  one  who  can  be  pleased  with  delicacy  of  thought  expressed  in  the  most  simple 
language — any  one  who  can  feel  the  charm  of  finding  practical  duties  elucidated  and  enforced 
by  apt.  and  variml  illustrations — will  be  delighted  with  this  volume,  which  presents  us  with 
tho  workings  of  a  pious  and  highly-gifted  mind." — Quarterly  Review. 

THE    CHRISTIAN    INSTRUCTED 

In  the  Ways  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Church,  in  a  series  of  Discourses  de- 
livered at  St.  James'  Church,  Goshen,  New-York.  By  the  Rev.  J.  A. 
Spencer,  A  M.,  late  Rector.  One  elegant  vol.  12mo.  $1  25. 

This  is  the  first  volume  of  Sermons  by  an  American  Divine  which  has  appeared  for  soma 
years.  Their  style  is  characterized  by  clearness,  directness,  and  force — am<1  t^ev  combine, 
in  a  happy  degree,  solid  good  sense  and  animation.  The  great  truths  of  the  gospel  ard  pre- 
sented in  a  familiar  and  plain  manner,  as  the  church  catholic  has  always  held  them,  and  a* 
they  are  held  by  the"  reformed  branches  in  England  and  America. 

Tho  Intjoduction  contains  a  biief  view  of  the  origin,  use,  and  advantages  of  the  various 
festivals  and  fasts  of  tlie  Church  ;  and  to  the  sermons  are  appended  notes  from  the  writings 
of  Hooker,  Barrow,  Taylor,  Pcnison,  Chillingworth,  Leslie,  Horsley,  Hobart,  and  other  stand- 
ard divines,  illustrating  and  enforcing  the  doctrines  contained  in  them.  The  book  is  well 
adapted  to  the  piesent  distracted  state  of  the  public  mind,  to  lead  the  honest  inquirer  to  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  and  to  give  a  correct  view  of  the  position  occupied 
by  the  Church. 

The  .following  is  the  copy  of  a  letter  of  recommendation,  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop 
Onderdonk,of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  : — 

"  Having  gieat  confidence  in  the  qualifications  of  the  Rev.  Jesse  A.  Spencer  for  pastoral 
instruction  in  the  Chutch  ofGod,  from  a  personal  acquaintance  with  htm  as  an  alumnus  of 
tho  General  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Piotestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  as  a  Doacon  and 
Presbyter  of  my  Diocese,  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  learn,  that  in  his  present  physical  inability 
to  discharge  the  active  duties  of  the  ministry,  he  purposes  publishing  a  select  number  of  his 
Mrraons.  Nothing  doubting  that  they  will  be  found  instructive  and  edifying  to  those  who 
•incerely  desire  to  grow  in  the  knowlndge  and  practice  of  the  gospel,  I  commend  them  to 
the  pationaste  of  the  DioonM  ;  and  this  the  more  earnestly,  as  their  publication  may  be  hoped 
to  be  a  source  of  temporal  comfort  and  support  toa  very  worthy  seivant  of  the  altar,  afflicted, 
at  an  early  period  of  his  ministry,  with  loss  of  bodily  power  to  be  devoted  toils  functions." 


Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Appltton  fy  Co. 

PALMER'S  TREATISE  ON  THE  CHURCH. 

A  Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ.  Designed  chiefly  for  tlio  use  of 
Students  in  Theology.  By  the  Rev.  William  Palmer,' M.  A.;  of  Wor- 
certer  College,  Oxford.  Edited  with  Notes,  by  the  Right  Rev.  W.  R. 
Whittingham,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
Diocese  of  Maryland.  Two  vols.  8vo.,  handsomely  printed  on  fijje  pa- 
per. $5  00. 

•'  'The  treatise  of  Mr.  Palmer  is  the  best  exposition  and  vindication  of  Church  Principles 
•tat  we  have  ever  read  ;  excelling  contemporaneous  treatises  in  depth  of  learning  and  solid- 
ity of  judgment,  as  much  as  it  excels  older  treatises  on  the  like  subjects,  in  adaptation  to 
the  wants  and  habits  of  the  a»e.  Of  its  influence  in  England,  where  it  ha*  passed  through 
two  editions,  we  have  not  the  means  to  form  an  opinion  ;  but  we  believe  that  in  this  conn- 
try  it  has  already,  even  before  its  reprint,  done  more  to  restore  the  sound  toqe  of  Catholic 
principles  and  feeling  than  any  other  one  work  of  the  age.  The  author's  learning,  and 
powers  of  combination  and  arrangement,  great  as  they  obviously  are,  are  less  remarkable 
than  the  sterling  good  sense,  the  vigorous  and  solid  judgment,  which  is  e,veiywhere 
manifest  in  the  treatise,  and  confers  on  it  its  distinctive  excellence.  The  style  of  the 
author  is  distinguished  for  dignity  and  masculine  energy,  while  his  tone  is  everywhere  nat- 
ural ;  on  proper  occasions,  reverential ;  and  always,  so  far  as  we  remember,  sufficiently  con- 
ciliatory. 

•'  To  our  clergy  and  intelligent  laity  who  desire  to  see  the  Church  justly  discriminated 
from  Romanists  on  the  one  hand,  and  dissenting  denominations  oh  the  other,  we  earnestly 
oxnmend  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church." — JV.  T.  Churchman. 

"This  able,  elaborate,  and  learned  vindication  of  the  claim  of  the  PiOtestant  -Episcopal 
Church,  to  be  considered  the  true  Catholic  Church,  and  the  exposure  which  is  heie  made  at 
the  grounds  of  difference  between  it  and  the  Romish  Church,  and  of  the  baseless  pretensions 
of  thiit  Church  to  be  the  '  one  Holy  Catholic,  and  Apostolic  Church,'  will  assuredly  commend 
these  volumes  to  the  favor  of  Churchmen." — JV.  Y.  American. 

ECCLESIASTES  ANGLICANUS; 

BEIWO 

A  TREATISE  ON   PREACHING 

In  a  Series  of  Letters  by  the  REV.  W.  GRESLKY,  M.  A.  Revised,  with 
Supplementary  Notes,  by  the  Rev.  Benjamin  I.  Haight,  JM.  A.,  Rector 
of  AH  Saints'  Church,  New  York.  In  one  handsomely  printed  volume, 

.  J2mo.     Price  $1  25.  ' 

AdvertM«ment. — In  preparing  the  American  edition  of  Mr.  Gresley's  valuable  Treatise,  a  few 
foot  notes  have  been  added  by  the  editor,  which  are  distinguished  by  brackets.  The  rilora 
••tended  notes  at  the  end  have  been  selected  from  the  best  works  OH  the  subject — and -which, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  are  not  easily  accessible  to  the  American  Student. 

HEADS  OF  CONTENTS. 

Letter  1.  Introductory.  PART  I.  O*  THE  MATTER  OF  \  SEHMOX.  Letter  II.  Th« 
end  or  ohject  of  Preaching.  III.  The  principal  topics  of  the  Preacher.  IV.  and  V.  How 
to  gain  tiie  Confidence  of  the  hearers— First,  By  showing  goodness  of  character.  VI. 
Secondly,  By  showing  a  friendly  disposition  towards  them.  VII.  Thirdly,  Uy  showing 
ability  to  instruct  them.  VIII.  Oil  Aiguments—  those  derivable  from  Scripture.  IX.  On 
Aigumnnts.  X.  On.  Illustration.  XI.  How  to  move  the  passions  or 'feelings— First.  By 
imdirect  means.  XII.  Secondly,  By  direct  means.  PART  II.  O.i  STY-LI.  XIII.  On  Style 
—general  remaiks.  XIV.  Perspicuity,  Foice,  and  Elegance.  XV.  to  XVIII.  On  Style,. a» 
dependent  on  the  choice,  number,  and  arrangement  of  words.  XIX.  The  Connectives,' 
PART  III.  Oa  THE  METHOD  OF  COMPOSING.  XX  On  the  Choice  of  a  Subject.  XXI. 
On  C- Meeting  Materials.  XXII.  What  Materials  and  Topics  should  generally  lie  thrown 
aside.  XXIII.  On  the  Method  of  Composing.  XXIV.  On  the  Exordium.  XXV.  On  Dis- 
euasion— Lectures.  XJfVI.  On  Discussion— Text-Sermons.  XXVII.  Oo  Discussion- - 
Subject-Sermons,  XXVIII.  On  Application.  XXIX  On  the  Conclusion.  PART  IV.  O* 
DELIVERY.  XXX.  Management  of  the  Voice.  XXXL  Eatnestneis  and.  Feeling.  XXXIL 
Gesture  and  Expression.  XXXIII.  Extemporaneous  Preaching.  SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES. 
A. — Matter  of  Pleaching.  B Sermons  to  be  plain.  C. — Texts.  D.— Unity.  E.— Exposi- 
tory Preaching.  F. — Written  and  Extemporary  Sermons. 

6 


Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Appleton  ty  Co 

~  KINGDOM  OF  CHRIST; 


Hint*  Ketpecttttg  tlte  Principle*,  CoitnlilnlioH,  and 

OF   THX 

CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

•  T    FREDERICK    DE.MSOX    MAURICE,    M.    A.,  • 

Chaplain  of  Guy's  Hospital,  Professor  of  English  Literature  and  History  .  King3*  Code  ft, 

London.     In  one  elegant  octavo  volume  of  600  page*,  unifurm  in  style  with  Jfevman's  Sir* 

moi.i,  Palmer  on  the  CAitrcA,  ^c.    &  50. 

Tiie  following  brief  table  of  content*  illustrates  the  more  important  topic*  treated  on  in  tbi* 
very  able  work. 

PART  I.  On  L'tf  Principles  of  tile  Quaker*,  and  of  the  different  religions  bodiet  vhich  hoe* 
onsen  once  the  Rfformotion,  and  of  tke  systems  to  to/tick  they  hate  gmex  birth.  CHAPTER  I. 
—  QUAKERISM.  On  the  positive  doctrines  of  the  Quakers  —  ordinary  objections  to  the** 
Doctrines.  The  Quaker  System  —  Practical  Workings  of  the  Quaker  System.  CHAPTER 
II.—  PURE  PROTESTANTISM.  The  leading  Principles  of  the  Refoimation—  Objection* 
u>  the  Principles  of  the  Reformation  Considered  —  Protestant  Systems  —  The  Practical  Work- 
in's  of  the  Protestant  Systems.  CHAPTER  HI.—  UXITARIAXISM—  it*  flistory  and  Ob- 
ject Illustiuteri.  CHAPTER  IV.  —  On  the  TENDENCT  op  THB  RELIGIOUS,  PHILOSOPHICAL, 
AND  POLITICAL  MOVEMENTS  WHICH  HIVE  TAKE*  PLACE  IN  PROTESTANT  BODIES  SINCE 
THC  MIDDLE  OP  THE  LAST  CEKTUBT.  The  Religious  Movements,  Philosophical  MOT*. 
aients,  Political  Movements. 

.PART  II.  Of  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  Romish.  System.  CHAPTE&I  —  RECAPITULATION 
CHAPTER  II.  —  INDICATION*  or  A  SPIRITUAL  CONSTITUTION.  CHAPTER  1(1.—  The  Scrip- 
tural view  of  this  Constitution.  CHAPTER  IV.  —  Signs  of  a  Spiritual  Society  —  Baptism  — 
The  Creeds  —  Forms  of  Worship—  The  Eucharist  —  The  Ministry  —  the  Scriptmes.  CHAPTE* 
V.  —  Of  the  Relation  of  the  Church  «nd  National  Bodie*—  Introductory—  Objections  of  th* 
Quakers—  The  Pure  Theocratist—  The  Separatist—  The  Patrician—  The  Modern  Statesman 
—The  Modern  Interpreter  of  Prophecy. 

PART  III.  The  English  Church  anJ  the  Systems  vhich  Divide  it.  CHAPTER  I.—  Intro- 
ductory —  How  far  this  Subject  is  connected  with  those  previously  Discussed.  Do  the  Sign* 
of  a  Universal  and  Spiritual  Constitution  exist  in  England  ?  Does  the  Universal  Church  ia 
Holland  exist  apart  from  its  Civil  Institutions  in  Union  with  them  ?  What  is  the  form  of 
Character  which  belongs  especially  to  Englishmen?  To  what  depravation  in  it  liable? 
CHAPTER  II.-  The  English  Systems.  The  Liberal  System—  The  Evangelical  System  —  ' 
The  High  Church  or  Catholic  System.  Reflection*  on  the  Systems,  and  on  our  position 
generally. 

Mr.  Maurice's  work  is  eminently  fitted  to  engage  the  attention  and  meet  the  wants  of  all 
interested  in  the  several  movements  that  are  now  taking  place  in  the  relig  ous  community  ; 
it  takes  up  the  pietensions  generally  of  the  several  Protestant  denominations  and  of  the  Ko- 
mani>w,  so  as  to  commend  itself  in  the  growing  interest  in  the  controversy  between  the  lat- 
ter and  their  opponent*.  The  political  portion  of  t!,e  work  contains  much  that  is  xttrartiv* 
to  a'  thoughtful  man,  of  any  oiof  no  religious  persuasion,  in  reference  to  the  existing  and 
possible  future  state  of  our  country. 

"  On  the  theory  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  all  shonld  consult  the  work  of  Mr.  Maurice, 
th«  mort  philosophical  writer  of  the  day."—  Professor  Garbttt's  Bampton  Lccturts,  18452. 

PEARSON  ON  THE  CREED. 

An  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  by  Jdhn  Pearson,  D.  D.,late  Bishop  of  Ches- 
ter. With  an  Appendix,  containing  the  principal  Greek  and  Latin 
Creeds.  Revised  and  corrected  by  the  Rev.  W.  S.  Dobson,  M.  A.,  Pe- 
terhouse,  Cambridge.  In  one  handsome  8vo.  volume.  $2  00. 

Tkt  foUotriuv  may  be  stated  as  the  odtontapet  of  Ms  edition  oner  all  others. 

ftnt  —  Grent  care  has  been  taken  to  correct  the  numerous  eriors  in  the  references  to  the 
teits  of  Scripture  wrrch  had  crept  in  by  reason  of  the  repeated  editions  throueh  which  Ink 
Admirable  woik  has  passed  ;  and  many  references,  as  will  be  seen  on  turning  to  thp  Index  of 
TexU,  have  been  added 

Secondly  —  The  Quotations  in  the  Note*  have  been  almost  universally  identified  and  th» 
nfeience  to  them  adjoined. 

Lagtry—  The  principal  Symbol*  or  Creeds,  of  which  the  particular  Articles  iiave  b«ea 
cited  by  the  Author,  have  been  annexed  ;  an'1  wherever  the  original  writers  have  given  the 
Sjmlwia  in  a  scattered  <md  disjointed  manner,  the  detached  parts  have  been  brought  into  a 
iiiece*»ive  and  connected  point  of  view.  These  have  been  added  in  Chronological  order  ia 
th«  foim  of  an  Appendix.  —  V\dt  Editor. 


Valuable  Episcopal-  Works  Published  by  D.  Appldon  <$•  Co. 

..  CHURCHMAN'S    LIBRARY. 

The  volumes  of  this  Standard  Series  are  highly  recommended  by  the  Bishops  and  OUrrr 
of  .the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  Publisher*  beg  to  siate,  wMe  in  so  short  a  time 
this  Library  has  incieased  to  so  many  volumes,  they  are  encouraged  to  make  yet  larger  addi- 
tion!, and  earnestly  hope  it  may  receive  all  the  encouragement  it  deserves. 

TUe  following  works  have  already  appeared  :— 

THE  UNSTY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

BY  THE  REV.  HENRY  EDWARD  MANNING,  M  A., 

Arclidencon  of  Ciiichesler.  <  omplete  in  one  elegant  volume,  IGmo.  Pric« 
$1  00. 

Part  I.  THE  HISTORY  AND  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  DOCTRISE  or  CATHOLIC  UKITT. 
Sbap.  I.  The  Antiquity  of  the  Article,  "I  believe  in  the  Holy  Church."  II.  The  Inter- 
pretation of  the  Article,  "The  Holy  Church,"  as  taught  by  uninspired  writers.  III.  The 
Unity  oi  the  Church  as  taught  in'Holy  Scripture.  IV.  The  Form  and  Matter  of  Unity. 
Conclusion  to  the  fiist  part. 

Part  II.  THE  MORAL  DESK;*  OF  CATHOLIC  UNITY.  Chap.  I.  The  Moinl  Desisn  of  the 
Church  as  shown  by  Holy  Scripture.  II.  The  Unity  of  the  Church  a  means  to  restore  the 
true  Knowledge  of  God.  III.  Tbe  Unity  of  the  Church  a  Means  to  resloic  Mnn  to  Uje 
Image  of  God.  IV.  The  Unity  of  the  Church  a  Probation  of  the  Faith  and  Will  of  Man. 
Conclusion  to  the  second  part. 

Part  III.  THE  DOCTRINF.  or  CATHOLIC  UNITY  APPLIED  TO  THE  ACTUAL  ?TATB  or 
CHRISTENDOM.  Chop.  L  The  Unity  of  the  Church  the  only  Revealed  wav  of  Salvation.. 
II.  The  Loss  of  Objective  Unity.  III.  Tlie  Loss  of  Subjective  Unity.  General  Conclusion 

"  This  is  a  profound  and  eloquent  treatise  on  a  most  interesting  subject— one  that  has  of 
late  received  peculiar  attention,  and  at  piesent  exercises  the  minds  of  thoughtful  Christians, 
perhaps  more  than  any  other.  Thousands  are  beginning  to  he  convinced  that  the  only  true 
and  real  bond  of  concoid  is  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  to  inquiie  anxiously  into  the  mean- 
ing of  that  article  of  the  Creed — "  I  believe  O*E  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  All  such 
will  read  uirh  avidity  the  admirable  trectise  which  has  been  so  fnvouiahly  received  in 
England,  and  whose  rcpublication  in  such  beautiful  style  entitles  Messrs.  Ap;>leton  to  the 
thanks  of  American  Churchmen.  Archdeacon  Manning  i$  well  known  by  o.her  theological 
works:  but  his  Unity  of  the  Church  is  the  most  matured  and  celebrated  production  of  bu 
pen,  and  it  has  placed  him  high  in  the  tank  of  Anglican  divines." — Banner  oftte  Cross. 


THE  DOUBLE  WITNESS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

By  the  Rev.  Win.  Ingraham   Kip,  author  of  "  Lenten  Fast."     One  ele- 
gant volume,  IGmo  ,  of  415  pages.     Price  75cts. 

COHTEHTS. — I.  Introductory.  Necessity  for  Knowing  the  reasons  why  we  are  Chnrcb- 
nen  II.  Episcopicy  proved  fiom  Scripture.  III.  Episcopacy  pioved  from  History.  IV. 
Antiqu  ty  and  Authority  fur  Forms  of  Prayer.  V.  History  of  our  Litursy.  VI.  The 
Church'*  Viewcffiapti^m.  VII.  The  Morul  Trajning  of  the  Church.  VIII.  Popular  Ob- 
jections to  the  Church.  IX.  The  Church  in  all  ages  the  Keeper  of  the  Truth.  X.  Con- 
olusion.  The  Catholic  Churchman. 

"  This  is  a  sound,  clear,  and  able  production— c  book  much  wanted  for  these  t'mes,  and 
one  that  we  feel  persuaded  will  prove,  eminently  useful.  It  is  a  happy  delineation  of  th»t 
DOUBLE  WITNESS  which  the  Church  bears  against  Romanism  and  nltra-Pr  testantisiii,  and 
points  out  her  middle  path  as  the  only  one  of  truth  and  saf'  ty." — Banner  nftke  Cross 

"Here  we  have  another  valuable  and  learned  contribution,  though  in  a  populai  forao 
withal,  to  tli  ological  literature,  and  presented  in  Appleton's  host  menner. 

"The  Rev  Mr,  K:p  h:>.s  embodied  in  this  volume,  and  somewhat  expanded  an;l  illustrated 
with  notes,  a  series  of  leciurcs  which  ho  delivered  to  his  congregation  in  Albany,  last 
winter,  on  '  The  Distinctive  Principles  ofthe  Church  '  These  lectures,  as  «e  le;irn  from  the 
preface,  were  delivered  '  at  a  season  of  stranee  excitemt-nt  among  different  denominations,' 
and  designed  as  a  safegunid  to  his  own  people  against  the  injurious  influence  ,.>t  such  ex- 
citement.''-^* 3".  American. 

"  This  volume  deserves  a  conspicuous  place  among  the  numerous  publications  which  th* 

.Iwcussion  of  Church  Principles  has  called  ou".     The  author  ha»  a  considerable  powei  of 

illustration,   and  h'ts  presented  some  points  in  a  very  utriking  light.     His  Lectures  on  the 

Antiquities  and  Forms  of  Prayer,  and  the  History  of  our  Liturgy,  rue  exceedingly  valuable  •" 

Christian  Witness  and  Advocate. 

8 


Valuable  Episcopal   Works  Published  by  D.  Applfton  ff  Co. 


£i}tiTc!jnian's  Companion  Cn  t$e  Closet: 

OR,  A  COMPLETE 

MANUAL  OF  PRIVATE  DEVOTIONS: 

Collected  from  the  writings  of  Archbishop  Land,  Bishop  Andrews,  Bishop 

.  Dr.  Hickes.  Mr.  Kettlewell,  Mr.  Spinckes,  and  other  eminent 

ENGLISH    DIVI.VES.      With  a  Preface  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Spincke* 

Edited  by  Francis  E.  Paget,  M.  A.    One  elegant  volume,  16mo.     $100 

The  pious  reader  will  require  no  rn^re  recommendation  of  this  TOIUICC  thtn  tint  which  h* 
wir  find  in  it*  title-page.  A  Manual  of  Prayers  compiled  from  the  <5svo!ion»l  writiusji  01 
Land  r.rd  Andrew*.  Ken  and  HieSe«,  Ketdeweil  and  Spinckes,  cannot  be  otherwise  than 
acceptable  to  all  wbo  Jove  tbose  prifKiples  which  they  tmaaimonsly  taught,  and  far  tb* 
maint  ir.irr  "  »birh,  (witli  the  exception  of  the  food  Bishop  of  Winter,  whose  lot  was  east 
in  tranquil  JiraeaO  they  f  offered  according  tn  the  measure  which  God  required  of  each  ;t»  all 
who  would  fain  fcHuw  them  in  the  paths  of  self-denial.  fpiritaal-mindedness.  mrrtnrea.  and 
obedience.  And  that  thU  book  has  been  to  past  generations  what  it  k  hoped  it  may  like- 
wise be  to  oar  own,  U  evident  from  the  fact  tnat  it  is  one  of  the  few  of  the  devotional  works 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  which  continued  to  be  in  constant  demand  during  the  eighteenth. 
its  valne  was  appreciated,  and  it  cootie  ned  to  be  reprinted  from  time  to  time  to  the  middle 
of  the  I  «:  r--".!TT  ;  and  it  is  presented  to  the  public  oare  mere,  with  the  anxioas  deaiif. 
that  as  it  found  fkToar  to  the  last,  while  Church  principles  were  declining,  *o  it  may  prove 
acceptable  to  the  many,  who  (blessed  be  God)  seem  now  lobe  zealously  and  faithfully  peek- 
ing their  way  back  to  the  "  old  paths"  from  which  we  hare  wandered.  —  fjfilar3*  Pnfttt, 

THE     PRACTICAL     CHRISTIAN: 

Or,  the  Devout  Penitent  ;  a  Book  of  Derotion,  containing  the  Whole 
Duty  of  a  Christian  in  all  occasions  and  necessities,  fitted  to  the  main 
nse  of  a  holy  life,  by  R.  Sherlock,  D.  D.  ;  with  a  Life  of  the  Author,  by 
the  Right  R't-v  B  -hop  Wilson,  Author  of  "Sacra  Privaia,"  &c.  One 
elegant  volume,  16mo.  $1  00. 

Practical  Christian  now  submitted  to  the  reader,  from  the  terenlh  Ear  !uh  editor. 

il  growth 
.  tha:  :>.«• 
i  eamevthr 

J.ed  to  ethers.'  .....  The  following  devotions,  Imng  impressions,  as  it  were,  of  the 
ld  —  Wing  the  tutor  of  Bishop  Wilson  again  before  us,  and  it  raaj 


living  moold  —  Wing  the  tutor  of  Bishop  Wilson  again  before  us,  and  it  raaj  be  devcuUv 
that  &•  th-.ir  author,  when  livinr,  succeeded  in  forming  one  of  the  noMert  eharaetefs  •  the 
Church's  Modern  Calendar,  so  now,  though  absent  from  us  in  body,  this 
it  everywhere  is  with  bis  nw  n  saictly  spirit,  may  tend  to  produce  many  i 


jo  the  c\otj  of  God  and  the  edification  of  his  Holy  Church.— JufitorV  Prrface, 

•  de  r^d  as  a  manual  of  private  devocon,  aad  a  means  of  practical  prenaratjos)  far 
-he  Ho!y  Coramunioa  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  this  book  is  among  the' best,  if  not 
•he  be«t,  ever  commended  to  the  members  of  our  Church." — Tkc  Ctarefasre*. 

OF  THE    IMITATION    OF   CHRIST: 
Four  books  bv  Thomas  A  Kempig.     One  elegantly  printed  volume,  16mo 

"  The  author  of  this  invaluable  work  was  born  about  the  year  1380,  and  has  always  been 
honoured  by  the  Church  for  his  eminent  sanctity.  Of  the  many  pious  works  composed  by 
htm.  his  '  Imitation  of  Christ '  (being  collections  of  his  deroti  >oal  thoughts  and  meditation* 
er  important  practical  subjects,  together  with  a  separate  treatise  on  the  Holy  Commojuon} 
Is  :r.e  n*ost  celebrated,  and  hv=  ever  been  admired  a»d  valued  by  devout  Cbmiians  of  evriy 
same.  Tt  has  passed  thronzh  oomerou*  editions  and  translations,  the  fiwt  of  which  into 
Enslish  is  ssid  to  have  been  made  hy  the  illustrious  Lady  Margaret,  mother  of  King  H«nry 
VII.  *!«>s«r«.  Appleton's  very  heautirnl  edition  is  a  reprint  from  the  bst  Eddish,  the  traos- 
latioo  of  which  wz*  chiefly  copied  from  one  printed  at  London  in  1677.  I:  deserves  to  b*  a 
companion  of  the  gooJ  Bishop  Wilson's  Sacra  Privaw."— Bmsmrr  •/  tfts  Owes. 

si 


Valuable  Episcopal   Works  Published  by  D.  Apphton  4p  6». 

CHURCHMAN'S  LIBRARY.— Continued. 

LEARN  TO  LIVE. 

Diice  Vivere — Learn  to  Live.  Wherein  is  shown  thai  the  Life  of  ChrSit 
u  and  ought  to  be  an  express  pattern  for  imitation  unto  the  life  of  a 
Christian.  By  Christopher  Sutton,  D.  D.  One  elegant  volume,  16mo. 
Price  $f  00 

"The  above  work  was  written  by  its  author  after  hi»  *  Disce  Mori,'  and  befoie  hif 
Godly  Meditations  on  the  Lord's  Supper  ;'  and  it  m.iy  be  said  to  come  between  them  also 
id  respect  to  the  depth  and  seriousness  of  to  .e  in  wh  ch  it  is  written.  The  unusually  fer- 
vent languige  of  Irs  last  work,  the  Meditations,  was  suggested  by  its  particularly  sacred  sub- 
ject; the  '  Disce  Mori,'  on  the  other  hand,  which  wis  his  first,  treating  on  a  subject  which 
Belongs  to  natural  a»  well  as  revealed  religion,  admitted  of  reflections  derived  from  a  variety 
of  sources,  besides  those  which  are  especially  of  a  Christian  or  gospei  character.  In  the 
work  which  came  next,  the  '  Disce  Vivere.'  he  moulded  his  materials,  aftsr  the  manner 
of  a  Kempis,  into  an  '  Imitatio  Chr.sti  ;'  each  chapter  inculcating  some  duty,  upon  th* 
pattern  of  Him  who  gave  Himself  to  be  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  all  perfection. — Editor'* 
Preface. 

LEARN  TO  DIE. 

Disce  Mcri — Learn  to  Die.  A  Religious  Discourse,  moving  every  Chris- 
tian man  to  enter  into  a  serious  Remembrance  of  his  End.  By  Chris- 
topher Sutton,  D.  D.,  late  Prebend  of  Westminster.  1  vol.  16mo.,  ele- 
gantly ornamented.  $1  00 

"  Of  the  three  works  of  this  excellent  author  lately  reprinted  in  England,  the  '  Disce 
Mori '  is,  in  our  judgment,  decidedly  the  best.  It  was  the  favourite  book  of  the  Bishop  of 
Joly,  who  (the  touching  incident  cannot  be  forgotten)  died  with  it  in  his  hands.  It  wan  thi* 
foci,  we  believe,  which  first  recalled  the  book  fiom  the  oblivion  into  which  it  had  fallen  ; 
and  our  readers  may  remember,  that  shortly  after  its  repnblication  in  England  we  urged  an 
American  reprint,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  book  which  would  prove  universally  acceptable 
•»  the  Church.  Such  is  still  our  opinion  ;  we  do  not  believe  that  a  single  journal  or  clergy- 
nun  in  the  Church  will  be  found  to  say  a  word  in  its  disparagement  ;  but  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, all  will  unite  in  commending  it  as  one  of  the  very  best  of  our  practical  works,  equally 
devotional  and  almost  equally  rich  with  the  similar  work  of  Taylor,  and  free  from  those 
features  with  which  Taylor  startles  such  weak  minds  as  have  a  morbid  dread  of  Romanism. 
Our  columns  have  been,  and  now  that  the  work  is  reprinted,  will  again  b-;.  enriched  with 
••tracts  which  will  make  the  '  DUce  Mori '  favourably  known  to  our  readers. "--C*u.rcA«ta». 

MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  SACRAMENT. 

Godly  Meditations  upon  the  most  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

By  Christopher  Sutton,  D.  D.,  late  Prebend  of  Westminster.     1  vol. 

royal  16mo.,  elegantly  ornamented.     $1   00. 

"  We  announced  in  our  last  number  the  republication  in  this  country  of  Button's  '  Medi- 
tations on  the  Lord's  Supper,'  and  having  since  read  the  work,  are  prepared  to  recommend  it 
warmly  and  without  quahfication  to  the  perusal  of  our  readers.  Ilia  purely  practical ;  th< 
doctrine  of  the  euchdrist  being  touched  upon  only  in  so  far  as  was  necessary  to  guard  against 
error.  Its  rtand.ird  of  piety  is  very  high,  and  the  helps  which  it  affords  to  a  devout  partici- 
pation of  the  holy  sacrament  of  which  it  treats,  should  make  it  the  inseparable  companion 
of  every  communicant.  We  know  indeed  of  no  woik  on  the  subject  that  can  in  all  respect' 
be  compared  with  it ;  and  for  its  agency  in  promoting  that  advancement  in  holiness  after 
which  every  Christian  should  stiive,  have  no  hesitation  in  classing  it  with  the  Treatise  on 
'  Holy  Living  and  Dying,'  of  Bishop  Taylor,  and  the  '  Sacra  Privata,'  of  Bishop  Wilson. 
The  period  at  which  the  book  was  written  will  account  for  and  excuse  what  in  the  present 
lg«  would  be  regarded  as  defects  of  style  ;  but  these  ars  fewer  than  might  have  been  ex- 
pected, nnd  ure  soon  lost  sight  of  in  the  contemplation  of  the  many  and  great  excellencie* 
with  which  it  abounds.  The  publishers  have  done  good  service  to  the  country  in  the  publi- 
cation of  this  work,  which  is  a  beautif.il  reprint  of  the  Oxford  edition,  and  WB  are  glad  te 
learn  that  it  will  be  speedily  followed  by  the  '  Disce  Vivero '  and  '  Disce  Mori '  of  the  same 
lulhor  — Banner  ef  the  Croat 

10 


1.,         •    « 
Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Appleton  tip  Of. 

CHUECHMAN'S  LIBRARY.— Continued. 

THE  RECTORY  OF  VALEHEAD: 

OR    THE    RECORDS    OF    A    HOLY    HOME. 
BY  THE  REV.  E.  W.  EVANS. 

From  the  Twelfth  English  edition.     One  elegantly  printed  volume,  16mo 

75  cents. 

"  Universally  and  cordirflly  do  we  recommend  this  delightful  volume.  We  believe  n* 
ixrson  could  read  this  work  and  not  be  the  better  Tor  its  pious  and  touching  lesson*.  It  is  a 
l»age  taken  from  the  book  of  life,  and  eloquent  with  all  the  instruction  of  an  excellent  pat- 
tern ;  it  is  a  commentary  on  the  affectionate  warning,  '  Remember  thy  Creator  in  the  days 
of  thy  youth.'  We  have  not  for  some  time  seen  a  work  we  could  so  deservedly  praise,  or 
«o  conscientiously  recommend." — Literary  Gaictte. 

"  This  work  illustrates  with  great  simplicity  and  beauty  and  variety,  the  privileges,  bless- 
fcijs,  and  influences  of  the  Christian  home.  It  is  rich  in  elegant  description,  in  fine  moral 
sentiment,  and  withal  is  happily  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  genuine  Christianity.  In  wish- 
ing it  an  extensive  circulation,  we  are  sure  that  we  are.only  wishing  well  to  the  cause  of 
domestic  piety  and  onler  and  happiness. — Albany  Advertiser. 

PORTRAIT   OF   A   CHURCHMAN. 

BY  THE  REV.  W.  GRESLEY,  A.  M 

From  the  Seventh  English  edition..     One  elegant  volume,  16mo.  75  cents. 

'•  The  present  volume  is  an  attempt  to  paint  the  feelings,  habits  of  thought,  and  mode  of 
ction  which  naturally  flow  from  a  sincere  attachment  to  the  system  of  belief  and  discipline 

/InntpH  in  our  Church. 


LYRA  APOSTOLICA. 

from  the  Fifth  English  edition    One  elegantly  printed  volume    75  cents. 

"  Here  is  a  volume  of  poetry  on  grave  subjects  ;  where  the  taste,  the  sensibilities,  and 
the  judgment,  all  are  interested.  Some  of  its 'topics  are  purely  imaginative,  but.  the  larg* 
majority  are  on  mattcis  to  which  every  thoughtful  mind  often  recurs  ;  and  by  the  consider- 
ation of  which  the  heart  and  conscience  are  benefited.  In  this  elegant  volum'e,  there'  are 
forty-five  sections,  and  one  hundred  and  seventy-nine  Lyric  poems,  all  short,  and  many  of 
them  sweet."— JV.  Y.  American 

"  This  is  a  collection  of  Lyrioal  Odes,  which  originally  were  published  in  the  British  Ma- 
gazine ;  a-nd  were  subsequently  combined  in  a  handsome  volume.  They  are  all  upon  grave 
topics,  and  arranged  under  forty-five  different  heads  ;  and  their  poetical  merits  are  commen- 
•ura'te  with  the  serious  dignity  of  the  subjects.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  one  hundred  and  se- 
venty-nine different  poems,  written  by  an  association  of  authors,  can  be  equal  and  uniform  in 
poetic  ability— nevertheless,  they  all  exhibit  a  high  degree  of  merit.  Some  of  the  Odes  are  of  a 
very  superior  order,  and  contain  such  pithy  instruction  that  the  work  is  just  fit  for  the  pock- 
et of  every  lover  of  Christian  Song,  on  account  of  the  brevity  of  almost  all  the  articles 
Johnson  once  stated  that  there  could  not  possibly  be  any  good  poetry  on  sacred  subjects.  If 
the  volumes  of  Milton,  and  Young,  and  Cowper',  and  Montgomery,  had  not  shown  the  erroi 
of  his  decision,  the  Lyra  Apostolica  would  prove  that  his  opinion  was  contrary  to  fart.  The 
beauty  of  the  work  accord*  with  its  melodious  chant*." — Jf.  Y.  Covritr  and  Enquirer. 


Valuable  Episcopal   Works  Published  by  D.  Apphten  fy  Co. 
CHUECHMAN'S  LIBRARY.— Continued. 

BISHOP  JEREMY 'TAYLOR  ON  EPISCOPACY. 

The  Sacred  Order  and  Offices  of  Episcopacy  asserted  and  maintained  , 
to  which  is  added,  Clerus Domini :  a  Discourse  on  the  Office  Ministeri- 
al ;  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  D.  D.  One  elegant  vol- 
ume, 16mo.  Price  $1  00. 

55"  The  reprint  H.  a  portable  form  of  this  Eminent  Divine's  masterly  Defence  of  Episco- 
pacy cannot  fail  of  being  welcomed  by  every  Churchman. 

'  With  the  imagination  of  a  Poet,  and  the  fervor  of  an  Apostle,  Jeremy  Taylor  cannot  b« 
repablishod  in  any  shape  that  he  will  not  have  readers.  More  especially,  just  DOW  will  this 
treatise  of  his  be  read,  when,  by  feebler  hands  and  far  less  well  furnished  minds,  attempts 
ore  making  to  dcprec  <a«  thai  sacred  order  and  those  sacred  offices  which  are  here  with  tri 
wnphant  eloquence  maintained. 

''  The  publishers  have  presented  this  jewel  in  a  fitting  casket." — .V.  Y.  American,  fA. 
17,  1844. 

"Jeremy  Taylor  was  not  simply  an  ornament  to  the  English  Church,  but  in  his  Christian 
walk  and  conversation  an  example  to  Christians  of  all  denominations.  His  ttyle  has  in  it  all 
the  elements  of  eloquence,  earnestness  of  purpose,  comprehensiveness  of  thought,  and  d«- 
rotioual  fervor.  The  work  under  notice  i»  particularly  adapted  to  the  study  of  such  Ep  »- 
eopalians  as  would  understand  the  grounds  of  their  recognized  orders. —  U.  S.  Saturday 

PML 

"  On  the  merit  of  Bishop  Taylor  it  would  be  absurd  and  osele.'s  to  expatiate.  His  piety 
has  been  the  subject  and  atteiratjon,  and  his  eloquence  the  theme  of  praise,  to  oar  best  writ- 
era.  "— British  Critic. 

THE  GOLDEN  GROVE: 

A  choice  Manual,  containing  what  is  to  be  believed,  practised,  and  de- 
sired, or  prayed  for;  the  prayers  being  fitted  for  the  several  days  of  th« 
week .  To  which  is  added,  a  Guide  for  the  Penitent,  or  a  Mode!  drawn 
op  for  the  help  of  devout  souls  wounded  with  sin.  Also,  Festival 
Hymns,«&c.  By  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor.  One  vol. 
I6mo.  $0  50 

"  The  name  of  Jeretn>  Taylor  will  always  be  a  sufficient  paupon  to  any  work  on  whwc 
title  page  it  appears.  Oi  no  writer  of  his  period,  or  indeed  of  any  other  period,  couM  it  be 
more  truly  said,  that  be  ho*  given  '  thought*  that  breatha  in  words  that  burn.'  The  present 
little  work  may  perhaps  b»  regarded  as  among  the  choicest  of  his  productions.  While  it  • 
designed  to  be  a  guide  to  devotion,  it  breathes  much  of  the  spirit  of  devotion,  and  abounds 
in  lessons  of  deep  practical  wisdom.  Its  author  was  an  Episcopalian,  and  Episcopalians  may 
well  be  proud  of  him  ;  but  bit  character  and  writings  can  no  more  "be  the  property  of  one  dV 
aomination  than  the  air  or  the  light,  or  any  other  of  6od:»  universal  blessings,  to  the  world." 
— Mbaxy  A&Dtrtiser 

SACRA  PRIVATA. 

The  Private  Meditations,  Devotions,  and  Prayers  of  the  Right  Rev.  T. 
Wilson,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Soder  and  Man.  First  complete  edi- 
tion. One  vol.  royal  16mo.,  elegantly  ornamented.  $1  00. 

"The  Messis.  Appleton  bare  brought  cut,  in  elegant  style,  Wilson's  'Sacra  Prrat*' 
attirt.  The  reprint  is  aii  honour  to  the  American  press.  The  work  itself  is  jwriiaps,  on  the 
whole,  the  best  devotional  treatise  _in  the  language,  and  it  now  appears  in  a  dress  worthy  ol 
its  character.  It  has  never  before  in  thi*  country  been  printed  entire  We  shall  sny  inor? 
anothei  time,  but  for  the  present  will  only  urge  upon  every  reader,  from  motives  of  duty  and 
interest,  foi  private  benefit  and  public  good,  to  buy  tkt  book.  JB.iy  good  books  shua  tlie  doubt 
fill,  and  burn  the  bad."—  The  Okxrcfaruut. 

A  neat  Miniature  Edition,  abridged  for  popular  use,  is  also  published 
Price  31  1-4  cents. 

12 


Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Appleton  Sf  Co. 

CHURCHMAN'S  LIB  flARY—  Continued. 

THE    EARLY    ENGLISH    CHURCH; 

Or,  Christian  History  of  England  in  early  British,  Saxon,  and  Norman 
Times  By  the  Rev.  Edward  Churton,  M.  A.  With  a  Preface,  by 
the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  ives.  One  vol.  I6mo.  elegantly  ornamented 
$1  00.' 

"The  following  delightful  pases  place  before  us  gome  of  the  choicest  examples  —  both 
etcrical  a-id  lay—  of  th«  true  Christian  spirit  in  the  EARLY  ENGLISH  CIIUKCH.  In 
liuth,  these  pages  are  crowded  with  weighty  lessons.  Heic  oar  laity  will  find  that  these  no- 
ble foundations  oi°  charity  in  the  mother  country  —  the  existence  of  winch  they  have  been 
accustomed  to  ascribe  to  the  credulity  of  ignorance,  01  the  feare  of  superstition,  successfully 
practised  upon  by  the  arts  of  priests,  had  a  higher  and  holier  origin  —  that  they  sprung  into 
being  under  the  warm  impulses  of  that  divine  and  expansive  benevolence  of  which  the  con- 
straining ;>'jv.rrof  Christ's  love  made  his  early  followers  such  large  partakers  at  the  period 
while  yet  Christian  men  fully  recognized  the  r  high  vocations,  as  '  stewards  of  the  manifold 
rifts  of  God  '  -  lived  under  the  abiding  conviction,  that  we  are  not  our  own,  but  that, 
bought  with  the  precious  Mood  of  Christ,'  we  are  'bound  to  glorify  him  in  our  bodies  and 
•or  (pint*  which  are  bis.'  Here,  too,  our  c!er»y  rmy  learn  a  lesson  ol  true  self  devotion  to 
their  Master—  nviy  s^e,  strikingly  and  beautifully  illustrated,  that  love  for  Christ,  and  that 
coal  for  his  kingdom,  which  alone  can  bear  us  tranquilly  and  successfully  through  the  la- 
boors  and  trials  of  the  boly  ministry  —  may  see  the  operation  of  the  true  missionary  spirit  — 
the  spirit  of  endurance  and  self-sacrifice,  which  shrinks  from  no  obstacles  when  the  salva- 
tion ot"  sinner?  s  to  be  achieved  under  the  command  and  the  promise  of  the  Almighty  God  — 
may  see,  in  shuit.  an  impiessive  and  instructive  exemplification  of  thatchilil  like  submission 
to  God,  thai  pure  and  simple  trust  in  him,  which,  at  his  bidding,  performs  duty,  and  leave* 
tl»»  result  to  his  providence  and  grace. 

"  But,  to  re.id  these  pages  with  profit,  we  must  pray  to  God  fot  a  portion  of  that  spirit 
which  indited  them,  and  which  so  manifestly  control  the  events  which  they  record  —  most 
read  tin  m  with  a  sp-ritual  eye  ;  with  an  eve  intent  upon  discovering,  not  that  which  mcy 
help  to  sustain  some  preconceived  notion,  but  that  which,  prompted  by  the  spirit  of  Christ, 
and  accomplished  through  the  power  of  his  saving  truth,  exhibits  to  us  some  great  principl« 
of  ChrUvian  action,  and  so;ne  powerful  motive  to  go  and  do  likewise."  —  yule  Preface. 

TALES  OF  THE  VILLAGE; 

In  which  the  Principles  of  the  Romanist,  Churchman,  Dissenter,  and  In- 
fidel :trc  contrasted.  By  the  Rev.  FRANCIS  E.  FACET,  M.  A.  In  three 

elega.T  vols.  ISmo.     $1   75. 

•*The=cti:ree  handsome  little  volumes  constitute  series  of  Tales,  purporting  to  be  the 
record  kept  by  a  country  clergyman,  o:  scenes  passing  under  his  own  view,  in  the  discharge 
of  liis  p.irot  lii  .1  duties.  They  hive  had  great  success  in  England,  as,  we  doubt  not,  this  firs* 
American,  edition  of  them  will  have  here. 

"  They  are  well  contrived  s  tales  to  interest  the  reader,  and  skilfully  used  as  vehicles 
for  setting  .'brlh  t.'ie  sound  doctrines  6r  [he  Church,  which,  while  '  protecting  against  Rome, 
remains  Catholic,  and  while  protesting  against  Geneva,  is  Reformed  :  whose  hand  is  against 
ill  error,  an  i  fell  error  «gainst  it.' 

"  T;i«  li.-it  --cries  or  volume,  presents  a  popular  view  of  the  contrast  in  opinions  and 
modes  of  thought  between  Churchmen  and  Kom  mists  ;  the  second  sets  forth  Church  princi- 
ples, as  opfH»cil  to  what,  in  England,  is  termed  Dissent  ;  and  ihe  third  places  in  contrast  Ike 
character  of  the  Churchman  and  the  Infidel. 

"  At  any  time  these  volumes  would  be  valvaUe,  especially  to  the  yonn».  .  At  present, 
when  men's  minus  are  much  turned  to  such  subjects,  they  cannot  fail  of  being  eagerly 
•ought  for."  —  JftiD-  York.  American. 

"  The  first,  second,  and  third  seiies,  in  as  many  small  volume*,  of  these  popular  talei,  »r» 
now  offcr.-d  tu  tiie  American  public.  At  present,  we  have  only  room  to  commend  them,  and 
we  do  it  most  heanily,  to  all  who  desire  edification  combined  with  amusement."  —  7%* 


THE    CHRISTMAS    BELLS; 
A  Tale  of  Holy  Tide,  and  other  Poems.  By  the  Rev.  J.  \V.    Brtowif,   au- 

thor of  "  Constance,"  "Virginia,"  &c.  One  vol.  royal  IGino.,  elegantly 

ornamented.     $0  75. 

"  Many  ol"  the  smaller  pieces  in  this  volume  have  appeared  from  time  to  time  in  various 
journals  and  magazines,  and  have  been  received  with  unqualified  favuur.  The  lea  .ing  poem 
was  written  fur  the  most  pait  during  the  season  whose  enjoyment.*  and  happy  m.1  ences  it 
is  design.  -d  to  commemorate.  The  pi  n  of  it  was  MflMtM  by  tli-  p-rus.il  uf  Washington 
Irvinj's  delizhtful  Essays  on  the  Christmas  season,  in'Jie  Sketch  Hook."—  Prcjtct. 

13 


Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Applet  on  3f  Co. 

A    MANUAL  .FOR    COMMUNICANTS; 

Or,  the  Order  for  Administering  the  Holy  Communion ;  conveniently 
arranged  with  Meditations  and  Prayers  from  Old  English  Dirinei, 
being  the  Eucharistica  of  Samuel  Wilberforce,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of 
Surry,  (adapted  to  the  American  service.)  Convenient  size  for  the 
pocket.  37j  cents;  gilt  leaves,  50  cents. 

'•  The  order  of  tnis  work  is  as  follows : — First,  "  The  Exhoitation  ;"  comprising  the  two 
ethoitations  which  are  inserted  in  the  Communion  Office;  then  the  "  Ante-Communion ;" 
next,  "  The  Canon  of  tho  Holy  Communion,"  beginning  with  the  Offertory  and  ending  with 
the  Form  of  administering  the  elements  ;  and  lastly,  the  Post-Communion.  This  part  of  the 
work  is  the  Communion  Office  as  contained  in  the  Prayer  Book,  slightly  altered  in  it* 
arrangement,  and  accompanied  with  a  few  short  devotional  meditations  in  the  margin.  After 
this  is  the  Introduction  by  Archdeacon  Wilberfoice,  chiefly  on  the  importance  ol  attendance 
at  the  Lord's  Tabla,  and  the  causes  of  the  present  neglect  of  the  privilege. 

"We  have  next  a  brief  notice  of  the  writers  from  whose  works  are  taken  the  .extracts 
which  form  the  body  of  the  volume.  These  are  Colet,  Cranmer,  Jewel,  Hooker,  Andrews. 
Sutton,  Laud,  Hall,  Hammond,  Taylor,  Lcighton,  Brevint,  Patrick,  Addison,  Ken,  Sparrow, 
Beveridge,  Hicks,  Cornier,  Kettlewell,  Wilson,  and  Potter;  whose  names  are  arranged  in 
chronological  order,  with  a  mention  in  few  lines  of  their  lives  and  characters.  The  remainder 
of  the  wor::  is  divided  into  three  paits ;  of  which  the  first  consists  of  Meditations  on  the 
Holy  Communion  ;  the  second  of  Prayers  before  and  after  Communion  ;  to  which  are  added, 
Bishop  Wilson's  Meditations  on  Select  Passages,  and  Bishop  Patrick's  Prayer  for  one  wiio 
cannot  publicly  communicate ;  and  the  third  of  select  passages  explanatory  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament  and  the  benefits  of  its  woithy  reception. 

'•  These  meditations,  prayer*,  and  expositions,  are  given  in  the  very  words  of  the  illus- 
trious divines  above  mentioned,  martyrs,  confessors,  and  doctois  of  the  Church;  and  they 
foim  altogether  such  a  body  of  instructive  matter  as  is  nowhere  else  to  be  found  in  the  same 
compass.  Though  collected  from  various  authors,  the  whole  is  pervaded  by  a  unity  of  spirit 
and  purpose ;  and  we  most  earnestly  commend  the  work  as  better  fitted  than  any  other 
which  we  know,  to  subserve  the  ends  of  sound  edification  and  fervent  and  substantial  devo- 
tion. The  American  reprint  has  been  edited  by  a  deacon  of  great  promise  in  the  Church, 
and  is  appropriately  dedicated  to  the  Bishop  of  this  diocese." — Churchman. 

THE    PRIMITIVE    DOCTRINE    OF   ELECTION: 

Or,  an  Historical  Inquiry  into  the  Ideality  and  Causation  of  Scriptural 
Election,  as  received  and  maintained  in  the  primitive  Church  of  Christ. 
By  George  Stanley  Faber,  B.  D.,  author  of  u  Difficulties  of  Roman- 
ism," ."Difficulties  of  Infidelity,"  &c.  Complete  in  one  volume, 
octavo.  $1  75. 

"  Mr.  Faber  verifies  hii  opinion  by  demonstration.  We  cannot  pay  a  higher  respect  to 
hit  work  than  by  recommending  it  to  all." — Church  of  "England  Quarterly  Review. 

LETTERS   TO   MY.  GODCHILD. 

BY  THE  REV.  I.  SWAKT,  A.  M. 
One  elegant  miniature  volume.     Price    37  1-2  cents. 

"  The  design  of  this  little  work — dedicated  by  permission  to  Bishop  Ondojdonk,  and 
oramended  by  Bishop  Delancey,  to  whom  while  in  pi  reparation  the  MS.  was  submitted— is  to 
enable  those  whom  distance  or  other  circumstances  prevent  from  adequately  discharging 
their  eponsorial  duties,  to  place  in  the  hands  of  their  godchildren  a  treatise  which  shall 
elucidate  the  relations  .between  the  sponsor  and  his  godchild,  and  supply,  as  far  as  may  be, 
the  want  of  immediate  and  const  int  personal  supervision. 

"  T*i»  commendation  of  .this  Diocesan  is  an  all-sufficient  introduction  of  Mr.  Swan's  use- 
ful IhUe  book."— JV.  Y.  America*. 

OGILBY    ON    LAY    BAPTISM. 

An  Outline  on  the  Argument  agaitiit  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism.  By 
the  Rev.  John  D.  Ogilby,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 
•On«  volume,  12mo.  -$U  75. 

•**  We  have  been  favoured  with  a  copy  of  the  above  work.  From  a  Cursory  inspection  o' 
ft,  we  take  it  to  be  B  thorough,  fearless,  and  able  discussion  of  the  subject  which  it  propose!" 
— aiming  less  to  excite  inquiry,  than  to  satisfy  by  learned  ajid  ingenious  argument  inquirie* 
already  excited,"-  Churchman, 

14 


Valuable  Episcopal  Works  Published  by  D.  Appleton  if   Co 

MAGEE    ON   ATONEMENT    AND    SACRIFICE. 

Discourses  and  Dissertation;*  on  the  Scriptural  Doctrines  of  Atonemen.l 
and  Sacrifice,  and  on  the  Principal  Arguments  advanced,  and  the 
Mode  of  Reasoning  employed,  by  the  Opponents  of  those  Doctrines,  as 
held  by  the  Established  Church.  By  the  late  most  Rev.  WILLIAM 
M'GFE,  D.  D.,  Archbishop  of  Dublin.  Two  v.ols.  royal  8vo.  beauli 
itilly  printed.  $5  00. 

"  This  is  one  pf  the  ablest  criticaf  and  polemical  works  of  modern  times  Archbishop 
Magee  is  truly  a  malcus  hereticolum.  He  is  an  excellent  scholar,  an  acute  reasoner,  and  if 
possessed  of  a  most  extensive  acquaintance  with  the  wide  field  pf  argument  to  which  hit 
volumes  are  devoted — the  profound  Biblical  information  on  a  variety  of  topics  which  the 
Archbishop  brings  forward,  must  endear  his  name  to  all  lovers  of  Christianity." — Orme. 


tracts  on  <£Jjristfan  Doctrine  antr  practice. 

Underthis  general  head  it  is  proposed  to  publish  a  series  of  Catechetical 
Works,  illustrating  the  Doctrine,  Di?cipline,  and  Practice  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  The  fallowing  commence  th* 
Series  :. 

A  HELP  TO  CATECHISING; 

FOR   THE    USE    OF 

CLERGYMEN,   SCHOOLS,   AND   PRIVATE    FAMILIES. 

BY  JAMES  HEAVEN,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Theology  at  King's  College,  Toronto. 

Revised  and   adapted   to   the   use   of  the   Protestant   Episcopal  Church  la  MM; 

United  States. 

BY  .HENRY  ANTHON,  D.  D. 

Rector  of  St.  Mark's  Church,  New- York. 

Price— single  copies,  6  1-4  cents — 50  copies,  $S  50 — 100  copies,  $4  00. 

Numerous  testimonies  have  been  received  of  the  usefulness  of  this  Catechism,  and  the 
veiy  moderate  price  affixed  leads  the  publishers  to  hope  for  it  a  very  extensive  circulation. 
fts  sale  has  already  exceeded  12,000  copies. 

CATECHISMS  ON  THE  HOMILIES  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

I.  On  the  Miseries  of  Mankind.  II.  Of  the  Nativity  of  ChrnU.  III. 
Of  the  Passion  of  Christ.  IV.  Of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ. 

BY  HENRY  ANTHON,  D.  D. 
Price— single  copies,  61-4  cents— 50  copies,  $2  50—100  copies,  $4  00. 

The  object  of  these  Catechisms  is  to  present  the  Homilies  in  a  shape  in  which  th»j  cm 
b»  learned,  marked,  and  digested,  by  the  youthful  members  of  the  Church. 

THE    BOOK    OF    COMMON    PRAYER; 

AND 

Administration  of  the  Sacraments  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the 
Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
.the  United  States  of  America,  together  with  the  Pwlter  or  Psalms  of 
David — illustrated  with  six  steel  engravings,  rubricated,  in  various 
bindings,  as  follows : 

Morocco,  e.xtracilt  leaves,  $2  25.  W  ih  clasp,  do,,  $3  «8.  Imititim  of  Morocco,  eitt 
leaves,  $1  75-  Plain  do.  $1  25.  Withe  A  rubrics,  ID  Morocco,  extra.  $i  00  Imita- 
tion do.,  $1  .  Sheep,  plainj  $1  00. 

It  may  also  be  had  in  lich  silk  ve'-  et  'oinding,  mounted  with'  gold,  fill  borden,  clasp,  fee. 
orice  $8  00. 

15 


LIBRARY 


COMMON-SCHOOL  LIBRARY. 

f^irst  Series,  25  volumes— Second,  22  volume*. 

D.  APPLETOX  &  CO.  respectfully  invite  the  attention  of  Superintendents  and  Teach- 
ers of  District  Schools,  to  their  valuable  Serii'g  of  Instructive  and  Moral  Works  for  youth  or 
the  adult.  The  design  has  been  to  embrace  in  this  collection  only  such  Works  as  may  be 
read  by  every  member  of  a  family,  always  inculcating  a  good  moral,  yet  un&ectarian  in 
character,  aiming  to  give  an  interest  and  a  taste  for  reading. 


I  fOR   THE    STATE    OF    NEW-YORK. 

•'I  have  long  been  in  the  habit  of  recommending  your  first  Series  of  the  School  Library 
to  Trustees  of  School  Districts  wishing  to  purchase  for  their  Library  ;  and  I  can  c-: 
bear  test  mony  to  the  value  of  the  entire  Series.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  works  are  admire 
My  adapted  to  the  intellectual  and  moral  wants  of  the  rising  generation;  and  the  neatnesVoi 
t-hi'ir  f.tfrution  no  less  than  the  cheap  rate  at  whi"  h  you  are  enabled  to  afford  them,  renden 
their  introduction. into  our  School  District  Libraries  in  every  respect  desirable." 

FIRST    SERIES. 

FIRST  IMPRESSIONS  ;  or,  Hints  to  those 
who  would  make  Home  happy.  By  Mn 
Ellis. 

THE  DANGERS  OF  DINING  OLT ;  or. 
Hints  to  those  who  would  make  Home 
happy.  To  which  b  added  the  Confes- 
sions of  a  Maniac.  By  Mrs.  tllis. 

SOMERVILLE  HALL;  or,  Hints  to  those 
who  would  make  Home  happy.  To 
which  is  added  the  Rising  Tide.  13  v  Mrs. 
Ellis. 

LITTLE  COIN,  MUCH  CARE ;  or.  How 
Poor  People  Live.  By  Mary  Howitt. 

WORK  AND  WAGES  ;  or,  How  Poor  Peo- 
ple Live.  By  Mary  Howitt. 

HOPE  ON.  HOPE  LVER;  or, the  Boyhood 
of  Felix  Law.  By  Mary  Howkt. 

STRIVE  AND  THRIVE,  a  tale.  By  Maty 
Howitt. 

SOWING  AND  REAPING;  or,  What  wiH 
Come  of  It  ?  By  Mary  Howitt. 

ALICE  FRANKLIN,  a  sequel  to  Sowinf 
r\nd  Reapfng.  By  Mary  Howitt. 

WHO  SHALL  BE  GREATEST  ?  a  tab. 
By  Mary  Howitt. 

WHICH  IS  THE  WISER  ?  or,  Peo|»Je 
Abroad.  By  Mary  Howitt. 

TIRED  OE  HOUSEKEEPING.    By  s.  T. 

Arthur. 


THE  LIFE  AND  ADVENTURES  OF 
HENRY  HUDSON.  By  the  author  of 
"  Uncle  Philip's  Conversations." 

THE  ADVENTURES  OF  HERNAN 
CORTES,  the  Conqueror  of  Mexico.  By 
the  sume. 

THE  LIFE  OF  CAPT.  JOHN  SMITH. 
By  the  same. 

THE  DAWMNGS  OF  GENIUS  ;  or,  Eatly  ; 
Lives  of  Eminent  Men.  By  Anne  Pratt. 

THE  MYTHOLOGY  OF  GREECE  AND 
ITALY,  adapted  for  children.  By  Tho- 
mas Keightlv. 

THE  Pi'PJ  AR  GROVE  ;  or,  Little  Harry  j 
and  his  Uncle  Benjamin.  By  Mrs.  Cop-  i 

KARLY  FRIENDSHIPS.    By  Mrs.  Copley,  i 
THE   PEASANT   AND  THE  PRINCK;  a.', 

tale  illustrative  of  the  French  Revolu- 

tion.     By  Harriet  Martincau. 
MASTERMAN  RKADY ;  or,  the  Wreck  of 

the  Pacific.     Written  for  Young  People. 

By  Capt.  Marryatt.     Three  volumes 
TBt      LOOKING-GLASS      FOR     THE, 

MIND  ;   or,   Intellectual    Mirror.       An  i 

elegant   collection  of  delightful  stories 

and  tales      Many  plates. 
THE  TWIN  SISTtRS,  a  tale.      By  Mrs. 

Sandham 


SECOND    SERIES. 


THE  LIFE  OF  OLIVER  CROMWELL. 
By  Robert  Southey  LL.  D. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  FRENCH  REVOLU- 
TION, its  Causes  and  Consequences. 
By  F.  Maclean  Rowan.  2  vols. 

THE  AltVENTURES  OF  DANIEL 
BOONE.  the  Kentucky  Riflemanr.  By 
the  author  of  "  Uncle  Philip's  Conversa- 

THE  YOUNG  STUDENT;  or,  Ralph  and 

Victor.     By  Madame  Gaizot.     In  3  vols. 

One  of  the  bent   moral  and  instructive 

works  ever  written 
LOVE  AND  MONEY,  an  Every-Day  Tale. 

Bv  Mary  Howftt. 
THE 'MINISTER'S  FAMILY;  or.  Hints  to 

make  Home  happy.  .  By  Mrs.  Ellis. 
PHILIP  RANDOLPH,  a  tale  of  Virginia. 

By  Mary  Gertrude. 


WOMAN'S  WORTH;  or,  Hints  to  Raise 
the  Female  Character.  A  very  valuable 
work, suitable  for  all  classes. 

THE  SETTLERS  IN  CANADA,  written 
for  Youth..  By  Capt.  Marryatt.  Q  vols. 

MY  UNCLE,  THE  CLOCKMAKER,  a 
tale  By  Mary  Howiiu 

THE  GIRLS'  MANUAL  ;  containing  tb« 
Piinciples  of  Conduct. 

THE  BOYS'  MANUAL  ;  containing  the 
Principles  of  Conduct. 

THE  FARMER'S  DAUGHTER,  a  Picture 
of  Humble  Life.  By  Mrs.  Cameron. 

THE  YOUNG  MAN  FROM  HOME,  in  • 
Series  of  Letters  on  Dangers  and  Duties. 
By  J.  A.  James. 

FAMILIAR  LEITTERSON  CHEMISTRY, 
and  its  application  to  Physiology  Com- 
merce, and  Agriculture.  By  Prof.  Liebig 


***  Th»  rolumtt  ore ftrnisked  rtrpuWy  bound  in  leoAer,  tt  30  cents  eoek  by  tht  Scries. 


